JUDGEMENT : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. Sonua P.S. Case No. 37 of 2009 was registered on 6th November, 2009 on the basis of fardbeyan of Nehru Lal Bodra against the appellants, namely, Chokro Kerai, Gondey Chaki @ Kondi Chaki, Rasika Bodra and Mahabir Mahato. During the investigation complicity of the appellant, namely, Bholanath Bodra in the occurrence surfaced and, accordingly, after the investigation a charge-sheet was filed against all of them. 2. During the trial the prosecution has examined nine witnesses to prove the charge under section 302/120-B of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants; the informant has been examined as PW-8. The co-villagers, namely, Madhav Jamuda PW-4 and Ram Singh Banra PW-5 did not support the prosecution and, accordingly, they were declared hostile. 3. In Sessions Trial No. 42 of 2010, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced to RI for life and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-under section 302 r/w section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The case of the prosecution is that in the night of 04th November, 2009 the appellants called Dilip Bodra for hunting wild pig and after committing his murder disposed of the dead-body in Jatraburu forest. Next day his dead-body was seen by some persons who had gone for grazing cattle. The prosecution witnesses have seen injuries on the dead-body of Dilip Bodra caused by stone. 5. Dilip Bodra has died a homicidal death is not disputed by the defence. PW-3, Dr. Santosh Kumar Srivastava who has conducted the post-mortem examination on 6th November, 2009 has found the following injuries on the dead-body of Dilip Bodra: “External: (i) Lacerated wound on right temporal region behind right ear 2” x ½” x bone deep. (ii) Fracture of frontal bone of scalp with crushed injury brain matter coming out from wounds. (iii) Lacerated wound on breach of nose transversally 3”x1/2” with fracture of nasal bones”. 6. In the opinion of the doctor the head injury was caused to Dilip Bodra by hard and blunt substance and in his estimation the death was caused within 6 to 36 hours from the post-mortem examination. 7. The case set up by the prosecution against the appellants is based on circumstantial evidence. 6. In the opinion of the doctor the head injury was caused to Dilip Bodra by hard and blunt substance and in his estimation the death was caused within 6 to 36 hours from the post-mortem examination. 7. The case set up by the prosecution against the appellants is based on circumstantial evidence. The main plank of the prosecution to prove the charge under section 302 r/w section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code is that in the night of 04th November, 2009 Dilip Bodra was lastly seen in company of the appellants and the next day his dead-body was found in Jatraburu forest. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Gambhir v. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1982) 2 SCC 351 , an inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating circumstances are found to be incompatible with innocence of the accused and the circumstance from which an inference of guilt are drawn must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. At this stage we may indicate that in the judgment rendered in Sessions Trial No. 42 of 2010, the learned Sessions Judge has not referred to any incriminating circumstance appearing in the prosecution evidence. 8. The informant is main witness for the prosecution and he is substantially supported by PW-1 and PW-2 on other aspects of the case. 9. PW-1, a co-villager, has deposed in the Court that the dead-body of Dilip Bodra was seen in the forest by the cattle grazers on 05th November, 2009. Along with the informant and other co-villagers he had gone to the forest and seen the dead-body of Dilip Bodra. He has stated that the informant and mother of the deceased told him that Chokro Kerai, Gondey Chaki @ Kondi Chaki, Rasika Bodra and Mahabir Mahato had come to the house of Dilip Bodra in the midnight and gone to the forest for hunting wild pig. He has further stated that the informant had told him that Bholanath Bodra wanted to become village Munda and that is the reason the appellants have committed murder of Dilip Bodra. PW-2, another co-villager, has also deposed in the Court that Dilip Bodra was murdered and his dead-body was found in the forest. He has gone to the forest and seen dead body of Dilip Bodra. PW-2, another co-villager, has also deposed in the Court that Dilip Bodra was murdered and his dead-body was found in the forest. He has gone to the forest and seen dead body of Dilip Bodra. From the informant he came to know that the appellants accompanied Dilip Bodra in the night at 12:00 AM for hunting wild pig. PW-1 and PW-2 are seizure witnesses and they have proved the seizure list. PW-8, the informant is brother of Dilip Bodra. He has narrated the prosecution story of the appellants coming to the house of Dilip Bodra in the night at 12:00 AM and taking him for hunting. He has deposed in the Court that the cattle grazers informed him that Dilip Bodra has been murdered and his dead-body is lying in the forest. On such information he had gone to the forest and found that his brother was killed. His fardbeyan was recorded in the village. PW-6 was posted as Sub-Inspector of Police in Sonua Police Station. He has collected blood-stained soil and stone from the place of occurrence and recorded statement of the witnesses and PW-7 has submitted charge-sheet against the appellants. PW-9 is the officer-in-charge of Sonua Police Station, who on receiving an information about murder of Dilip Bodra had arrived in the village and recorded fardbeyan of PW-8. 10. However, what has transpired during the cross-examination of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-8 would demolish the prosecution story. 11. In a case based on circumstantial evidence motive plays an important role. In “Surinder Pal Jain v. Delhi Administration” reported in (1993) Supp. (3) SCC 681, the Hon’ble 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 in such a case. The absence of motive, however, 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.” According to the prosecution the motive behind the crime was that Bholanath Bodra wanted to become village Munda. During the cross-examination the prosecution witnesses have admitted that the post of village Munda is hereditary; Dilip Bodra was issueless and; after death of Dilip Bodra the informant would have become village Munda. During the cross-examination the prosecution witnesses have admitted that the post of village Munda is hereditary; Dilip Bodra was issueless and; after death of Dilip Bodra the informant would have become village Munda. In his cross-examination PW-8 has admitted that after death of his brother he was working as village Munda. It has also come on record that a piece of land was pledged by Dilip Bodra to Chokro Kerai and after his death the land has come in possession of the informant. In the evidence it has come that he is cultivating the piece of land which was pledged by his brother. 12. The foundation of the prosecution case is motive of Bholanath Bodra to become village Munda, however, in face of the aforesaid admissions of the prosecution witnesses it must be held that the prosecution has failed to establish the very foundation of its case. 13. PW-1 has stated that Damu Jamuda informed him that dead-body of Dilip Bodra is found in Jatraburu forest. He has further admitted that the villagers have no complain against Dilip Bodra and he has signed the seizure list at the police station. PW-2 has stated that his statement was never recorded by the police and he has signed the seizure list on 05th November, 2009 at about 10:00 AM but a First Information Report was lodged on th November, 2009 at 7:30 PM. There is one more circumstance which suggest that information about death of Dilip Bodra was known to the prosecution witnesses on 5th November, 2009. PW-2 had stated that about 11:00 AM -12:00 noon on 05th November, 2009 Nehru Lal Bodra gave him information about murder of his brother. The prosecution has however not offered a plausible explanation for delay in lodging the FIR. The evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 which creates serious doubt on seizure of blood-stained soil and stone would also suggest that after due deliberation the appellants have been implicated in this case. There is another reason to hold so. PW-2 has admitted in his cross-examination that his younger brother was convicted on charge of committing rape upon wife of cousin brother of Bholanath Bodra, so he has a reason to depose against him. The cattle grazers one of whom was Lengo Gope were not examined during the trial and this also is of some relevance that they belonged to a different tola. The cattle grazers one of whom was Lengo Gope were not examined during the trial and this also is of some relevance that they belonged to a different tola. We, therefore, find that there is serious controversy on time of death and the place of murder of Dilip Bodra which according to the prosecution was found in Jatraburu forest. 14. In a criminal case prompt registration of the First Information Report is likely to give correct picture of the incident and reveal name of the real culprit. In a criminal trial why prompt lodging of the First Information Report is so important has been discussed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Thulia Kali v. The State of Tamil Nadu” reported in (1972) 3 SCC 393 , as under: “12. ........First information report in a criminal case is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence adduced at the trial. The importance of the above report can hardly be overestimated from the standpoint of the accused. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the report to the police in respect of commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of the actual culprits and the part played by them as well as the names of eyewitnesses present at the scene of occurrence. Delay in lodging the first information report quite often results in embellishment which is a creature of afterthought. On account of delay, the report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation. It is, therefore, essential that the delay in the lodging of the first information report should be satisfactorily explained.....” 15. It is quite a settled proposition in law that when the victim was seen lastly in the company of the accused and soon thereafter if he has been found dead the accused must offer an acceptable explanation to this incriminating circumstance, however, only on the basis of the evidence on last-seen-together an accused cannot be convicted and that too for a serious crime like murder. The evidence on last-seen-together which has come through the evidence of the informant has not been proved by the prosecution. The evidence on last-seen-together which has come through the evidence of the informant has not been proved by the prosecution. In his examination-in-chief the informant has stated that the appellants came to the house of his brother in the night of 04th November, 2009 and took him for hunting. However, in his cross-examination he admits that he is residing in different tola and does not claim that at that time he was present there in the house of his brother. He has further admitted that next day morning at about 6:00 AM he came to know that the appellants had visited Dilip Bodra in the night of 04th November, 2009 and he had gone with them for hunting. He has stated has Lengo Gope has given this information to him. On his own account, he is not an eye-witness on this point and the prosecution has not produced any other evidence in support of the last-seen-together theory. We further find that there is absolutely no evidence on criminal conspiracy among the appellants to commit murder of Dilip Bodra and, in fact, the informant has stated that Mahabir Mahato has killed his brother. 16. The above being the factual scenario, we find that the prosecution has failed to lead evidence on any incriminating circumstance relied upon by it to prove the charge against the appellants and, therefore, we hold that conviction of the appellants in Sessions Trial No. 42 of 2010 is not sustainable in law. 17. Accordingly, the judgement of conviction under section 302 r/w section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code dated 28.02.2013 and the order of sentence of RI for life and fine of Rs. 10,000/ for the offence under section 302 r/w section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code dated 02.03.2013 passed against the appellants, namely, Chokro Kerai, Gondey Chaki @ Kondi Chaki, Rasika Bodra, Bholanath Bodra and Mahabir Mahato by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No. 42 of 2010 are set-aside. 18. Mr. Shekhar Sinha, the learned Public Prosecutor states that Bholanath Bodra, who is the appellant in Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 164 of 2013 is on bail and the appellants, namely, Chokro Kerai, Gondey Chaki @ Kondi Chaki, Rasika Bodra and Mahabir Mahato are in custody. 19. 18. Mr. Shekhar Sinha, the learned Public Prosecutor states that Bholanath Bodra, who is the appellant in Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 164 of 2013 is on bail and the appellants, namely, Chokro Kerai, Gondey Chaki @ Kondi Chaki, Rasika Bodra and Mahabir Mahato are in custody. 19. Accordingly, the appellants, namely, Chokro Kerai, Gondey Chaki @ Kondi Chaki, Rasika Bodra and Mahabir Mahato shall be set free forthwith, if not wanted in connection to any other criminal case. 20. Bholanath Bodra, who is on bail shall stand discharged of the liability of bail-bonds furnished by him. 21. In the result, Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 254 of 2013, Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 164 of 2013 and Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 210 of 2013 are allowed. 22. Let lower Court records be transmitted to the Court concerned, forthwith. 23. Let a copy of the judgement be transmitted to the Court concerned through 'FAX'.