JUDGMENT : 1. The appellant has preferred this jail appeal aggrieved by the judgment and sentence dated 25.08.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhawani, Mandi, District Jhalawar whereby the appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 302 IPC and has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/-has been imposed upon him. On non-payment of fine, to further undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment. 2. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that on 12.04.2019 complainant – Gheesa Lal son of Ratan Lal filed an FIR stating therein that he is a resident of Kadodiya. He has two sons, Deepak and Bhola and three daughters. His son Deepak was staying in the house in village and he was staying at the well with his other children. On 11.04.2019 at about 7.30 in the morning, when his son – Bhola went to the house in Village, Deepak did not woke up and when he called Rajesh Bai, Deepak had expired. Thereafter, information was given to him and his wife Sanjan Bai. From the appearance of the victim, it was seen that there were some marks on his neck. The FIR was lodged against an unidentified person. 3. The police after due investigation submitted charge-sheet under Section 302 IPC against the present appellant. Charges were framed and appellant denied the same and sought trial. As many as 18 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and 27 documents were exhibited. The appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Learned trial Court after hearing the arguments has convicted the appellant for offence under Section 302 IPC, aggrieved by which, the present jail appeal has been filed before this Court. 4. It is contended by counsel for the appellant that the case rests on circumstantial evidence and the chain is not connected. The circumstances, which are stated to be against the appellant, are; last seen evidence, recovery of a wire at the instance of the accused appellant and dispute between the appellant and his wife and the deceased being brother of his wife. It is also contended that in the initial FIR and the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., no doubt was raised against anyone. As far as last seen evidence is concerned, it is contended that witnesses have stated that they have seen the accused appellant in the village a day before the incident. It is also contended that in the initial FIR and the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., no doubt was raised against anyone. As far as last seen evidence is concerned, it is contended that witnesses have stated that they have seen the accused appellant in the village a day before the incident. There is no evidence that the appellant was last seen with the deceased. With regard to the recovery of wire, it is contended that the wire was recovered from the house of the deceased, the same place where his body was recovered and as per evidence of the prosecution, the police had been to the place of occurrence and thoroughly checked the premises. Recovery of the wire at a belated stage from the accused has no relevance. 5. It is contended that the motive for the offence is stated to be a dispute between the appellant and his wife. It is argued that the appellant’s wife is sister of the deceased as per the evidence adduced, which is in the nature of hearsay evidence. It is also stated that the accused appellant used to beat his wife. It is further argued that sister of the deceased has not been examined before the Court below and therefore, the Court below was in error in relying upon the hearsay evidence with regard to the dispute between the appellant and his wife. 6. We have considered the contentions and have carefully perused the record as well as the judgment of the trial Court. 7. As per the prosecution, the circumstances against the accused appellant are:- (a) that he was seen in the village a day prior to the date of incident; (b) that a wire was recovered at the instance of the appellant and (c) that he was ill-treating his wife, who happens to be sister of the deceased. 8. We would discuss the above in sequence as under: (a) The fact that the accused appellant was seen in the village a day prior to the date of incident is concerned, Bhola (PW10), brother of the deceased, who is aged about 10 years, has stated in his evidence that the appellant had come to his village a day prior to the date of incident. This witness has not stated that he has seen the appellant with the deceased. This witness has not stated that he has seen the appellant with the deceased. Rajesh Bai (PW-11), sister of the deceased, has stated in her examination-in-chief that they were not having any doubt upon anyone, therefore, they did not state the name of any person. In her cross-examination, she has stated that the appellant had come to his house prior to the date of incident. He had lunch in the morning at 9-10 a.m. and left the house and thereafter, he had not seen him. She has further stated that his brother died after Suresh had left. Both the above witnesses have not seen the deceased with the accused and hence, they cannot be termed as last seen witnesses. As per Rajesh Bai (PW-11), the appellant had left the village and thereafter, his brother expired. Jitendra Singh (PW-7), SHO, in his cross-examination has admitted that the accused appellant was staying 200 kms away from village Kadodiya in M.P. Thus, this evidence cannot in any way connect the appellant with the crime. (b) As per the FIR, the fact of death of the deceased was revealed on 12.04.2019. The accused was arrested on 16.04.2019. The information with regard to the electric wire was recorded on 18.04.2019 (Exhibit-P-14) and the wire was recovered on the same day vide Exhibit-P-15 – recovery memo of electric wire. It is evident that the police went to the place of occurrence on 12.04.2019 itself. The photographs of the place of occurrence were taken on 12.04.2019 vide Exhibit-P-5. The site plan of the place of occurrence with its description was also prepared on the same day vide Exhibit-P-6. Mukesh Kumar (PW14), who has recovered the wire vide Exhibit-P-15 has admitted that wire was recovered from Village Kadodiya and the recovery memo does not have any independent witness. He has also admitted that they have visited the site prior to the recovery. Similar is the statement of Surendra Singh (PW-15), Constable, who has stated that no independent witness was summoned at the time of recovery of the wire and that they had visited the place of occurrence prior to the recovery also. As per Dr. Balmukund Verma (PW-6), the neck of the deceased had two marks of rope and both the marks were of the size with 3/4 cm. This witness has also stated that there were no other injuries except marks on the neck. As per Dr. Balmukund Verma (PW-6), the neck of the deceased had two marks of rope and both the marks were of the size with 3/4 cm. This witness has also stated that there were no other injuries except marks on the neck. Recovery of the wire from the place of occurrence, which was thoroughly checked by the police after six days of the incident and not summoning any independent witness for effecting the recovery creates doubt on the recovery. Further, there is no evidence that the wire was used for commission of offence since the doctor has given evidence that there were two marks on the neck of the size with 3/4 cm and were of a rope. Recovery effected from the place of occurrence where the police had already searched, cannot thus be used against the accused appellant. (c) The motive of the crime is stated to be a dispute between the appellant and his wife. The witnesses, who have stated about the dispute being there between the husband and the wife are all hearsay witnesses and the main witness who could have deposed in this regard was wife of the deceased. Rajesh Bai (PW-11), who is sister of wife of the appellant, has stated that she had not seen the appellant beating her sister and it is only hearsay evidence. The fact that the appellant ill-treated his wife could be provided by the evidence of the appellant’s wife, who has not been produced before the trial Court. The fact of there being a dispute is thus not established and even considering that the appellant was not in good terms with his wife, would not lead to the inference that the appellant murdered his brother-in-law. 9. We are, thus, of the view that the chain is not connected and no case is made out against the accused appellant. The trial Court has clearly erred in coming to the conclusion that the appellant has committed the offence because he was last seen in the village. The judgment and sentence dated 25.08.2021 passed by the trial Court thus deserves to be and is accordingly set aside. The appeal is thus allowed. The appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. He is in jail, he be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case or for any other purpose. 10. The judgment and sentence dated 25.08.2021 passed by the trial Court thus deserves to be and is accordingly set aside. The appeal is thus allowed. The appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. He is in jail, he be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case or for any other purpose. 10. Appellant is directed to furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount in accordance with Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. before the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) within two weeks from the date of release to the effect that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against this judgment or on grant of leave, the appellant on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Apex Court. The bail bond will be effective for a period of six months. 11. In view of the disposal of the main appeal, D.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application No.714/2022 also stands disposed of.