JUDGMENT : Sanjay K. Agrawal, J This criminal appeal filed by the accused-appellants under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.08.2013, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) in S.T. No.153/2012 (State of CG vs. Ram Singh Rathiya & another), whereby both the appellants-accused have been convicted for offence: under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous life imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- and, in default of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for 01 year and also under Section 201 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 05 years with fine of Rs.5,000/- and, in default of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for 06 months. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that between 08:00 PM of 10.07.2012 till 10:00 AM of 11.07.2012, at Village Nawapara (Tenda) within the ambit of Police Station Gharghoda, District Raigarh (CG), the accused-appellants in further of their common object and intention assaulted deceased- Ramdev Rathiya and his wife- Kamla Rathiya by means of ‘lathi’ and caused their death and, further in order to escape from said offence of committing murder of deceased- Ramdev Rathiya and Kamla Rathiya, they covered the dead-bodies of deceased by means of cloth, put it on bed and set ablaze, due to which the dead-bodies got burned and, thereby, committed the offence under Sections 302, 201 & 34 of IPC. 3. The further case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is that: the appellant No.01- Ram Singh Rathiya and deceased-Ramdev Rathiya both were brothers and between them a dispute/enmity was prevailing with regards to payment of compensation money against land acquisition; on the fateful intervening night, between 08:00 PM of 10.07.2012 till 10:00 AM of 11.07.2012, the accused-appellants assaulted deceased- Ramdev Rathiya and Kamla Rathiya by means of ‘lathi’ and caused their death and, further in order to escape from said offence of committing murder of deceased, cover the dead-bodies of deceased by means of cloth, put it on bed and set them ablaze, due to which the dead-bodies got burned; thereafter, on 11.07.2012, appellant No.01- Ram Singh Rathiya informed to police that his brother-Ramdev Rathiya and his wife- Kamla Rathiya both are dead and their deadbodies are burned in the house, pursuant to which police registered marg intimations (Ex.P/20 & P/24) and on the basis of marg. intimations, FIR (Ex.P/21) was registered for offence under Section 302 & 201 of IPC; thereafter, spot map was prepared and panchnama of dead-bodies of deceased were also prepared vide Ex.P/08; thereafter, the dead-bodies of deceased were sent for postmortem examination and in the postmortem examination report (Ex.P/10 & P/11), conducted by Dr. S.N. Keshari (PW-06), it has been opined that cause of death of deceased- Ramdev Rathiya and Kamla Rathiya is due to hemorrhage and shock, as a result of multiple injuries and nature of death is homicidal in nature; thereafter, memorandum statements of accused-appellants were recorded vide Ex.P/13 & P/14 and, pursuant to said memorandum statements of accused-appellants, two ‘lathi’ are seized vide Ex.P/16 & P/16, which were sent for query to medical expert vide Ex.P/12A, whereby it has been opined that injuries mentioned in postmortem report can be caused by said ‘lathi’ vide query report (Ex.P/12); thereafter, the seized articles were sent for FSL examination vide Ex.P31 and in the FSL report (Page 38-40 of paper-book) it has been opined that no blood has been found on the two ‘lathi’ seized pursuant to memorandum statements of accused-appellants. Thereafter, statement of witnesses were recorded and, after due investigation, the police filed charge-sheet in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gharghoda and, thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The appellants/accused abjured their guilt and entered into defence by stating that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated. 4. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 12 witnesses and exhibited 34 documents apart from FSL report and final report, whereas the appellants-accused in support of their defence has not examined any witness, but exhibited 02 documents. 5. The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record proceeded to convict the appellants for offence under Sections 302 & 201 of IPC and sentenced them as mentioned hereinabove, against which this appeal has been preferred by the appellants-accused questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 6. Mr. Manoj K. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the learned trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellants for offence under Section 302 & 201 IPC, as the prosecution has failed to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt. 6. Mr. Manoj K. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the learned trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellants for offence under Section 302 & 201 IPC, as the prosecution has failed to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt. He further submits that there is no eye-witness or any direct evidence available on record against the appellants to connect them with the crime in question, except the statement of Bhikhyamati Rathiya (PW-10), who is mother of deceased- Kamla Rathiya, who has proved existence of previous enmity between the appellant No.01 and deceased- Ramdev Rathiya. Furthermore, the alleged seizure of ‘lathis’ pursuant to memorandum statements of accused-appellants, have not been proved by seizure witnesses, namely, Beerbal Rathiya (PW-07) and Mukutram (PW-11). By placing reliance on the decision rendered by their Lordships of Supreme Court in the matter of Balwan Singh vs. State of Chhattisgarh and another, (2019) 7 SCC 781 he submits that in the two ‘lathis’ which are said to have been seized pursuant to memorandum statements of accused-appellant, no blood has been found on the said ‘lathis’, therefore, same is of no help to the prosecution. As such, the conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court for offence under Section 302 & 201 of IPC against the accused-appellants deserves to be set aside and they are liable to be acquitted from said charges. 7. Per-contra, Mr. Ashish Tiwari, learned State counsel supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submits that the prosecution has proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt by leading evidence of clinching nature. He further submits that strong motive has been proved by the prosecution against the accused-appellants, as on account of previous dispute/enmity which was prevailing with regards to payment of compensation money against land acquisition between the accused-appellant No.01 Ramsingh Rathiya and deceased- Ramdev Rathiya, the appellant No.01 with the assistance of appellant No.02 assaulted deceased- Ramdev Rathiya and Kamla Rathiya and caused their murder and further burned their dead-bodied in order to escape from the crime. The existence of previous enmity between the appellant No.01 and the deceased has also been proved by Bhikhyamati Rahiya (PW-10), who is mother of deceased- Kamla Rathiya and prosecution has also exhibited document (Ex.P/34) copy of crime register, for that purpose, as such, strong motive for commission of offence on the part of the appellants has been proved by the prosecution. Furthermore, though no blood has been found on the seized articles i.e. ‘lathis’, but the unnatural conduct of the appellant in not raising alarm while the deceased, who were appellant’s brother and sister-in-law (bhabi), were burning, conclusively establishes the guilt of the appellants in the crime in question. Thus, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants for offence under Section 302 & 201 of IPC. Thus, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 9. The first and foremost question is as to whether the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature, which the learned trial Court has recorded in affirmative by taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence available on record and particularly considering the postmortem reports (Ex.P/10 & P/11), wherein it has been opined that cause of death of deceased- Ramdev Rathiya and Kamla Rathiya is due to hemorrhage and shock, as a result of multiple injuries and nature of death is homicidal in nature and the statement of Dr. S.N. Keshari (PW-06), who has conducted the postmortem of the dead-bodies of the deceased. Accordingly, taking into consideration the postmortem reports (Ex.P/10 & P/11) and the statement of Dr. S.N. Keshari (PW-06), we are of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court is absolutely justified in holding that the death of deceased- Ramdev Rathiya and Kamla Rathiya is homicidal in nature, as the same is correct finding of fact based on evidence and same is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. Accordingly, we hereby affirmed the said finding. 10. Now the next question would be whether the learned trial Court is justified in holding that the accused-appellants herein is the perpetrator of the crime in question ? 11. Accordingly, we hereby affirmed the said finding. 10. Now the next question would be whether the learned trial Court is justified in holding that the accused-appellants herein is the perpetrator of the crime in question ? 11. In the instant case, in order to prove existence of previous enmity between the appellant No.01 and deceased- Ramdev Rathiya, the prosecution has exhibited relevant pages of crime register as Ex.P/34, which shows that in the year 2011 on the report so lodged by deceased- Kamla offence under Section 294, 506, 452, 323, 34 of IPC were registered against accused-appellant No.01 and his son. Apart from that oral evidence of Bhikhyamati Rathiya (PW-10) and Vishwanath Rathiya (PW-04), mother and brother of deceased- Kamla Rathiya, were brought on record by the prosecution to prove motive for commission of offence against the accused-appellants. After conjoint reading of document (Ex.P/34) with the statements of Bhikhyamati Rathiya (PW-10) and Vishwanath Rathiya (PW-04), the learned trial Court found proved that there was motive for commission of offence in question by the appellants, as there was previous dispute/enmity between the appellant No.01 and deceased- Ramdev Rathiya with regards to payment of compensation money against land acquisition. It is well settled law that previous enmity is a doubled edged sword, it can be used for false implication as well as for correct implication. Even otherwise, it is one of the incriminating circumstances for a case based on circumstantial evidence. 12. The Supreme Court in the matter of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 , lays down five golden principles to constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence and held in para-153 as under: “153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established: (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between 'may be proved' and 'must be or should be proved' as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between 'may be proved' and 'must be or should be proved' as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793 where the following observations were made: Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say. they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.” 13. Now the next circumstance that has been pleaded on behalf of the prosecution is that seizure of two ‘lathis’ pursuant to memorandum statements of accused-appellants. Admittedly, though in the query report (Ex.P/12) it has been opined that injuries caused to the deceased, as mentioned in postmortem report, can be caused by said ‘lathi’, but in the FSL report it has been clearly stated that no blood stains were found on the said two ‘lathis’. 14. The Supreme Court in the matter of Balwan Singh vs. State of Chhattisgarh and another, (2019) 7 SCC 781 held that if the recovery of bloodstained articles is proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution, and if the investigation was not found to be tainted, then it may be sufficient if the prosecution shows that the blood found on the articles is of human origin though, even though the blood group is not proved because of disintegration of blood and held in Para-24 as under: “24. In the instant case, then, we could have placed some reliance on the recovery, had the prosecution at least proved that the blood was of human origin. As observed supra, while discussing the evidence of PWs 9 and 16, the prosecution has tried to concoct the case from stage to stage. Hence, in the absence of positive material indicating that the stained blood was of human origin and of the same blood group as that of the accused, it would be difficult for the Court to rely upon the aspect of recovery of the weapons and tabbal, and such recovery does not help the case of the prosecution.” 15. Further, seizure witnesses in the instant case, namely, Beerbal Rathiya (PW-07) and Mukutram (PW-11), before whom ‘lathis’ were seized, have turned hostile and they have not supported the case of the prosecution. Even if recovery of ‘lathis’ is held to be proved beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of statement of Investigating Officer, namely, Keshav Narayan Aditya (PW-12), but vide FSL report no blood has been found on the said two ‘lathis’ recovered pursuant to memorandum statements of accused-appellants and, as such, recovery of ‘lathis’ pursuant to memorandum statements of accused-appellants is of no help to the prosecution and no other incriminating circumstance has been found proved by the prosecution or by the learned trial Court. Thus, the prosecution has only been able to prove strong motive for commission of offence against the accused-appellants. 16. It is well settled law that motive may be an important circumstance in a case based on circumstantial evidence, but it cannot take place of conclusive proof. (See: Sampath Kumar vs. Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri, (2012) 4 SCC 124 ). In a recent decision rendered in the matter of Mahendra Singh vs. State of M.P., (2022) 7 SCC 157 their Lordships of Supreme Court reiterated the law on the point stating that merely because motive is established, solely on that basis accused cannot be convicted under Section 302 of IPC. 17. In a recent decision rendered in the matter of Mahendra Singh vs. State of M.P., (2022) 7 SCC 157 their Lordships of Supreme Court reiterated the law on the point stating that merely because motive is established, solely on that basis accused cannot be convicted under Section 302 of IPC. 17. In view of foregoing analysis, in our considered opinion since prosecution has only be able to prove motive against the accused-appellants for commission of offence in question, but rest of the circumstances have not found proved beyond reasonable doubt and as held by their Lordships of Supreme Court in above mentioned decisions, we are unable to uphold the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court in convincing the appellants for offence under Sections 302 & 201 of IPC. 18. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellants for offence punishable under Sections 302 & 201 of IPC as well as the sentence imposed upon them by the learned trial Court is hereby set aside. They are acquitted from the charges under Section 302 & 201 of IPC and they be released from jail forthwith if their detention is not required in any other matter/case. 19. This criminal appeal is allowed.