ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. The present appeal is against the concurrent finding of guilt under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the appellant on the charge of committing murder of his brother's wife - Bhagen Bai (the deceased). The appellant has been imposed punishment by the Trial Court (the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Surajpur, Chhattisgarh) of life imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 1000/- (Rupees thousand only), latter coupled with default imprisonment for two months. The High te: 202209.20 :43:41 1ST ason: Court dismissed his appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Conviction is based on circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has not produced any eyewitness. The incident occurred on 16th September 1999 at about 05.30p.m at village Kandrai under Jainagar police station. She was admitted to the district hospital but her relatives got her discharged. The reason for this appears to be that they were not able to afford her treatment costs. Ultimately, she succumbed to her injuries on 24th October 1999. 3. Prosecution version is that the appellant had entered the house where the deceased was residing and killed her by striking on her head with a tangi. Opinion of the autopsy surgeon attributed her death to coma which appeared from the brain injury and its complexities. Altogether 15 witnesses were examined. In this order, however, we shall refer to the depositions of those witnesses only, whose depositions we consider necessary for adjudication of this appeal. The Trial Court had believed the prosecution story, which was founded on two factors. On analysis of evidence, which were depositions of witnesses, the Trial Court found that presence of the appellant at the place of occurrence was seen. The other factor was recovery of a tangi on the basis of the statement of the appellant, which was found to be weapon of assault. The High Court also confirmed the said finding. 4. The witnesses of fact in this case are all post-occurrence witnesses. PW-3, Kunti Bai, wife of another brother of the appellant, was the closest in proximity of time at the place of occurrence among the witnesses of fact. In her deposition, she stated that it was the appellant who had committed the offence. 4. The witnesses of fact in this case are all post-occurrence witnesses. PW-3, Kunti Bai, wife of another brother of the appellant, was the closest in proximity of time at the place of occurrence among the witnesses of fact. In her deposition, she stated that it was the appellant who had committed the offence. Her deposition is that on hearing sounds of cries of children coming from the house of Ram Somar (husband of the deceased), she had entered into the room of the deceased. There she found her lying on the ground with blood oozing out of injuries on her head. She did not see the appellant at the place of occurrence and her deposition statement is that Balaram had run away. As regards involvement of Balaram, she has stated on oath 'Police was told that Balaram was talking in the street that he has killed and then I heard the same'. The following passage of her deposition is relevant in this regard and the same is quoted below: "It is correct that my mother-in-law had returned from the market in the night. It is incorrect to state that Bhagen Bai had sustained injuries. Voluntarily stated that she was killed, and her brain had come out. It is correct that I had not seen the quarrel. Accused had not told anything before me. It is also correct that Balaram had stated nothing to me about the quarrel. Police was told that Balaram was talking in the street that he has killed and then I had heard the same. If this thing is not written in my police station Exhibit D.1, I cannot tell the reason thereof." 5. It has been highlighted by Mr. Pradeep Kumar Mathur, learned counsel for the appellant that none of the witnesses of fact has deposed having seen Balaram going in or coming out of the room in which Bhagen Bai was lying injured at the material point of time. P.W.6 (Merli Bai), mother of the appellant and mother-in-law of the deceased was declared hostile. In any event, she was in the market on the day of the incident as per her deposition. As per her version, she had heard about the incident from her grandchild, Fulki Bai. P.W.6 (Merli Bai), mother of the appellant and mother-in-law of the deceased was declared hostile. In any event, she was in the market on the day of the incident as per her deposition. As per her version, she had heard about the incident from her grandchild, Fulki Bai. P.W.2 (Bigu Ram-father of the appellant) in his deposition had stated that his wife (i.e. P.W.6), at the time of occurrence of the incident had run away towards the field because the appellant Balaram had threatened to kill her also. But no such threat-incident has emerged from the evidence of P.W.6. On the other hand, she has stated that Balaram had never quarreled with her. The Trial Court has concluded the presence of Balaram at the place of occurrence mainly based on Bigu Ram's deposition. Such conclusion, in our opinion, was incorrect. Bigu Ram's evidence of his wife (P.W.6) being threatened by the appellant has no support. 6. Two other factors which weighed with the Trial Court and the High Court on conviction of the appellant are past enmity between the appellant and the deceased and recovery of the weapon of assault, being a tangi. So far as the first factor is concerned, the appellant and the deceased belonged to the same family in a broader sense. The appellant had soured relationship with majority of the members of his family. But that factor, by itself cannot be the determinant factor in finding of guilt of the appellant. No incident has been narrated by the witnesses which could have acted as a super-strong motive for committing the offence barring family-disputes. 7. Mr. Gautam Narayan, learned counsel appearing for the State has laid emphasis on the fact that both father and mother of the appellant had deposed against him and we were taken through such depositions (P.W.2 & P.W.6). There is nothing in their statements which reflect involvement of the appellant in the commission of offence alleged against him except mere assertion that he had committed the crime. 8. We shall now turn to the tangi, which as per prosecution case was recovered on the basis of statement of the appellant made before the Investigating Officer Gehan Lal Srivastava (P.W.11). The latter's evidence is that the said weapon with blood stains was seized from his room. The medical professional, Dr. 8. We shall now turn to the tangi, which as per prosecution case was recovered on the basis of statement of the appellant made before the Investigating Officer Gehan Lal Srivastava (P.W.11). The latter's evidence is that the said weapon with blood stains was seized from his room. The medical professional, Dr. Kamlesh Kumar Tamrakaar (P.W.9), who initially attended the victim has attributed the injuries to a sharp edged weapon. Same has been the opinion of the autopsy surgeon, Dr. I.D. Gupta (P.W.14). 9. The Trial Court had also noted that at the time of framing of charge, the appellant had stated that the deceased had accidentally fallen on the tangi which caused injury. But in our view, this statement does not establish the case against the appellant. 10. The admitted position appears to be that the appellant was having bad relationship with his siblings and parents also and that is sought to be used as motive in the offence. The High Court considered this factor in sustaining the finding of the Trial Court. But past enmity can have double impact, both in support and against an accused. There was no aggravating factor in the family related dispute which could have been treated as motive for the offence. We have discussed depositions of the main witnesses of fact and we find that there was no witness, pre or post occurrence indicating appellant's presence at the place of occurrence at the time of commission of the offence. The deposition of P.W.3 also falls short of that vital aspect which could prompt us to conclude presence of the appellant at the place of occurrence on 16th September 1999. 11. Under these circumstances, in our opinion, it has been improper on the part of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court to convict the appellant solely on the evidence of recovery of the tangi. There was no forensic matching of the blood stains found on the tangi with blood of the deceased. There are no other incriminating circumstances beyond recovery of the tangi. This is a fit case where the appellant-accused ought to have been acquitted giving him benefit of doubt. The Trial Court as well as the High Court, in our view, erred in convicting him. There are no other incriminating circumstances beyond recovery of the tangi. This is a fit case where the appellant-accused ought to have been acquitted giving him benefit of doubt. The Trial Court as well as the High Court, in our view, erred in convicting him. We chose, in this case, to enter into the domain of appreciation of evidence in spite of there being concurrent findings of fact as in our view, the appellant's guilt has been established in the two fora on evidence too thin to sustain conviction in a case involving offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 12. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. The judgments of the High Court and the Trial Court on finding the appellant guilty and subjecting him to sentence of life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees Thousand only) are set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges. 13. We are apprised by learned counsel for the parties that the appellant is undergoing his sentence in correctional home. Let him be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case for detention. 14. Let original records which are produced before us be returned. 15. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. 16. There shall be no order as to costs.