JUDGMENT Mehta, J. - The appellant-complainant has preferred this victim's appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. for assailing the judgment dated 17.12.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2 Nagaur in Sessions Case No.250/2015 whereby, the respondents Nos. 2 to 5 were acquitted from the charges punishable for the offences under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B of the IPC. These charges were framed against the respondents in regards to the homicidal death of one Ganpatram. 2. We have heard and considered the submissions advanced by Shri R.S. Choudhary, learned counsel representing the complainant and learned Public Prosecutor and have perused the impugned judgment of acquittal and have re-appreciated the evidence available on record. 3. The case of the prosecution was based purely on circumstantial evidence. The FIR (Ex.P/7) came to be lodged by Pancharam (PW-4) alleging inter alia that his son Ganpatram had gone to his maternal grand parent's village Dharnawas on 24.10.2014. At around 6:00 pm, he was with his maternal uncle Mohanram and thereafter at the same time (at 6:00 pm) he left the village and his phone was responding as switched off. One Pappuram (PW-9) called the informant and asked him as to whether, Ganpatram had returned home to which, Pancharam replied in negative. About 4 o' clock in the morning, the officers of Police Station Khimasar came to the house of informant and told him that Ganpatram's dead body was lying at a distance of about 150 feet from the Lala was crossroads, on the Jodhpur-Nagaur road and that probably he had died because of an accident. The informant suspected that the theory of accident was incorrect and that his son had been killed somewhere else and his dead body had been thrown on the road by unknown persons. On the basis of this report, an FIR No.171/2014 came to be registered at the Police Station Khimasar and challan was filed against the respondents Kailash Nath, Sohan Nath, Vijay Singh and Bajrang Singh for the above offences. After committal, charges were framed against them. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 26witnesses were examined and 42 documents were exhibited by the prosecution in support of its case. When questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused denied the prosecution allegations and claimed to be innocent but did not lead any evidence in defence. After committal, charges were framed against them. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 26witnesses were examined and 42 documents were exhibited by the prosecution in support of its case. When questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused denied the prosecution allegations and claimed to be innocent but did not lead any evidence in defence. While appreciating the evidence, the trial court found that two circumstances were portrayed by the prosecution for bringing home the charges: (1) The circumstance of last seen as deposed by the witnesses Suresh (PW-12) and Dinesh (PW-13), who allegedly tried to project that the accused Kailash Nath took Ganpatram away with himself on the fateful day whereafter, Ganpatram was not seen alive. However, when the trial court appreciated the evidence of these two witnesses, it was revealed that both of them admitted in their cross-examination that they did not see Ganpatram going with Kailash Nath. It was also stated by the witnesses that Kailash Nath and Ganpat were on friendly terms. Thus, apparently, the circumstance of last seen together was not proved by cogent evidence. (2) In addition thereto, the prosecution tried to portray that the Bolero Car (No.RJ 21-GB 2574) which was used in the murder and for disposal of the dead body, was recovered at the instance of the accused Kailash Nath. As per the statements of the witnesses Prakash (PW-15) and the Investigating Officer Bharat Rawat (PW-23), the car was closely inspected after seizing the same, but no blood stains were seen thereupon. Nonetheless, the Investigating Officer proceeded to remove one tyre of the vehicle and the seat-cover thereof was allegedly recovered at the instance of the accused Sohan Nath. When the tyre and seat-cover were serologically examined, both were found stained with the same blood group as that of the deceased i.e. group 'A'. However, the trial court held that the recoveries were totally unbelievable and did not help the prosecution to prove the charges because there was no evidence to show that the injuries caused to the deceased Ganpatram could have resulted as a result of running over of a vehicle. 4. The prosecution also failed to lead any evidence to show that Kailash Nath was ever in possession of the car in question. 4. The prosecution also failed to lead any evidence to show that Kailash Nath was ever in possession of the car in question. In this regard, Roopa Ram (PW-18), being the registered owner of the said vehicle stated in his testimony that he had sold the same to one Sangram S/o Balaram through an agreement. 5. Therefore, apparently, there was no plausible evidence on the record of the case so as to connect the respondents with the alleged offence. The prosecution miserably failed to prove even any of the links in the chain of the so called incriminating circumstances, the existence whereof is imperative to bring home the charges in a case based purely on circumstantial evidence. 6. Hence, we are of the opinion that the trial court was perfectly justified in acquitting the respondents of the charges by the impugned judgment dated 17.12.2019 which does not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever warranting interference therein. Thus, there are no grounds so as to entertain this victim's appeal, which is dismissed as being devoid of merit. Record be returned to the trial court forthwith.