JUDGMENT : Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J. 1. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the appellant against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.06.2013 passed by the Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon, C.G., in Sessions Trial No.41/2012, whereby the learned court below convicted the appellant herein for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 3000/-, in default of payment of fine further R.I. for 1 year. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 03.04.2012 at about 10:00 AM complainant Sahangu Ram (PW1) gave information to the Police Station - Manpur as to presence of an unknown dead body in Khairkatta. On the basis of said information, merg intimation (Ex.P/1) was registered. The dead body of the deceased was recovered and sent for postmortem. 3. Further case of the prosecution is that, deceased Ballar Sai was resident of Village Phulkodo and worked as a labourer, who often used to visit Village Khairkatta for labor. Two-three days after the date of incident, wife of the appellant herein namely Bisantin Bai (PW18) informed Jyoti Bai (PW4) that the deceased Ballar Sai had his meal in their home on the night of the incident and he was touching the anklet worn by Kumari Bharti (PW2), her niece, upon which Kumari Bharti (PW2) shouted and they woke up. The appellant herein while pulling the deceased, brought him out of the house. Thereafter, meeting took place in the village where many persons were present including Jyoti Bai (PW4) and Kumari Bharti (PW2). It was informed by Kumari Bharti (PW2) in the said meeting that the deceased was touching her anklet while she was asleep. Jyoti Bai (PW4) also has stated similarly in the said meeting. As per the prosecution, the appellant herein on coming to know about the above fact, took the deceased to nearby fields and killed him by axe and threw his dead body in a pit. The FIR (Ex.P/19) was registered on 08.04.2012 and thereafter, the wheels of investigation began running. The investigation officer, N.L.Mandavi (PW17), took the appellant herein into custody and, thereafter, recorded his memorandum statement (Ex.P/7). Pursuant thereto, one axe was recovered and lungi and baniyan (vest) worn by the appellant were seized by vide Ex.P/8. The FIR (Ex.P/19) was registered on 08.04.2012 and thereafter, the wheels of investigation began running. The investigation officer, N.L.Mandavi (PW17), took the appellant herein into custody and, thereafter, recorded his memorandum statement (Ex.P/7). Pursuant thereto, one axe was recovered and lungi and baniyan (vest) worn by the appellant were seized by vide Ex.P/8. Statement of the witnesses under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C was recorded and seized articles were sent for chemical examinations vide Ex.P/12 and after due investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC which was committed to the Court of Sessions for hearing and disposal in accordance with law. 4. The learned trial Court framed charge for offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC against the appellant. The appellant abjured the charge and pleaded non-guilty. In order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses and exhibited 21 documents including FSL report. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC wherein he denied the guilt; however, he examined none in his defense. 5. Learned trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the appellant for offence punishable under Sections 302 of IPC and sentenced him as aforesaid, against which present appeal has been preferred. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the memorandum and seizure witnesses Amar Sai (PW9) and Hire Singh (PW12) have not supported the case of the prosecution. Other independent witnesses have also not supported the prosecution’s version. He further submits that in FSL report (Ex.P/21) blood has not been found and there is absence of motive in the case. He also submits that chain of the circumstances is not complete so as to the base the conviction of the appellant. He lastly argues that the appellant has been falsely roped in this case, therefore he is entitled for acquittal 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions made above and submits that the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offence as other than memorandum and seizure, the circumstance of last seen together has also been found proved by the trial Court, therefore, the instant 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. 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. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record, the following two questions arise for consideration :- (i) Whether the prosecution has been able to prove death of deceased Ballar Sai to be homicidal in nature? (ii)Whether the appellant is the perpetrator of the crime in question? Answer to question No. 1: - 10. The learned trial court has recorded an affirmative finding with regard to this question on the basis of postmortem report (Ex.P/16), wherein Dr. Seema Thakur (PW16), who has conducted the postmortem, has clearly stated that the cause of death is internal bleeding owing to the injuries suffered by the deceased and the nature of death may be homicidal. After going through the postmortem report (Ex.P/16) as well as the evidence of Dr. Seema Thakur (PW16), we have no hesitation to hold that the death of deceased was homicidal in nature and the learned trial court was justified in holding so. Answer to Question No. 2:- 11. Coming to next question for consideration as to whether the appellant is author of the crime in question. The learned trial Court has relied upon the circumstances viz. (i) the deceased on the night of the incident tried to outrage modesty of Ku. Bharti (PW2), niece of the appellant; (ii) invoked by such act the appellant assaulted the deceased; (iii) dead body of the deceased was found on the very next day near the fields of the appellant in a pit; (iv) several rounds of meeting took place in village with regard to alleged act of the deceased and in one of the meetings, appellant was also present where he was asked as to how the dead body of the deceased reached to the pit where he didn’t say anything; (v) the appellant was last seen together with deceased; and (vi) pursuant to memorandum statement (Ex.P/7) alleged axe was recovered and clothes of the appellant were seized vide Ex.P/8. 12. 12. At the outset it would be apt to take note of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with circumstantial evidence held that the onus was on the prosecution to prove that the chain is complete and the infirmity or lacuna in prosecution cannot be cured by false defence or plea. The condition precedent as per the words of their lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is that before conviction could be based on circumstantial evidence, chain of circumstances must be fully established. It reads thus :- (i) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned must or should and not may be established; (ii) the fact so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable of any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; (iii) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; (iv) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and (v) 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. The first and second circumstances considered by the learned trial Court is that the deceased on the night of the incident tried to outrage modesty of Ku. Bharti (PW2). This fact has been admitted by Ku. Bharti (PW2) in her cross-examination and she further stated that the deceased was thrown out of the house in the night itself and the deceased was assaulted by the present appellant. This fact has been further admitted by Bisantin Bai (PW18), wife of the appellant, and Kaling Sai (PW5), therefore, it has been established by the prosecution that on 02.04.2012 in the night, the deceased tried to outrage modesty of niece of the appellant, thereafter, he was ousted from the house. 14. Coming to the third circumstance relied by the trial Court that the dead body of the deceased was found on very next day near the fields of the appellant in a pit. 14. Coming to the third circumstance relied by the trial Court that the dead body of the deceased was found on very next day near the fields of the appellant in a pit. In this regard, witness Sanhgu Ram (PW1) saw the dead body and he informed the police and consequently, merg intimation (Ex.-P/1) was registered. The dead body was recognized as of deceased Ballar Sai. From the above piece of evidence, it cannot be denied that the dead body of the deceased was found on the very next day near the fields of the appellant in a pit and same is evident from merg intimation (Ex.-P/1), dead body identification (Ex.-P/2), inquest (Ex.-P/3A) and seizure (Ex.-P/4). 15. The fourth circumstance relied by the trial Court is that several rounds of meeting took place in the village with regard to the alleged act of the deceased and in one of the meetings, the appellant was also present and no explanation was given by him with regard to dead body which was found in his fields. Ku. Bharti (PW-2) has stated in para-4 of her cross-examination that there was a meeting with regard to touching of her feet by the deceased on the night of the incident. Sundari Bai (PW3) has also stated that a meeting was held for such embarrassing act of the deceased, who tried to touch the feet of Ku. Bharti (PW-2). Jyoti Bai (PW4) has stated that a meeting was convened, but there was no discussion about death of the deceased. Likewise, Kaling Sai (PW5) has also stated in his cross-examination that in meeting there was no discussion regarding murder of the deceased. Phool Singh (PW8) has stated in his crossexamination that the deceased was a drunkard. Bisantin Bai (PW-18) has stated in para-6 of her cross-examination that a meeting was called after murder of the deceased and Ku. Bharti (PW-2) was inquired by the members of meeting wherein she had narrated the incident of outraging her modesty. Bisantin Bai (PW-18) has categorically denied that the deceased was murdered by the present appellant and his dead body was thrown in a pit. 16. From the above set of evidence, it is crystal clear that though there was meeting, but it was with regard to outraging of modesty of Ku. Bharti (PW2) and there was no discussion about murder of the deceased. 17. 16. From the above set of evidence, it is crystal clear that though there was meeting, but it was with regard to outraging of modesty of Ku. Bharti (PW2) and there was no discussion about murder of the deceased. 17. The next circumstance as relied by the learned trial is that, pursuant to memorandum statement (Ex.-P/7) of the appellant, axe was recovered and clothes of the appellant were seized. The witnesses to memorandum namely Amar Sai (PW9) and Hire Singh (PW-12) have not supported the recovery of axe, and seizure of Lungi and Baniyan (vest). Further, in FSL report (Ex.- P/21), no blood was found on the axe, Lungi and vest of the present appellant. Human blood was found on soil and T-shirt of deceased, however, blood group could not be proved due to disintegration of blood, therefore, alleged recovery of axe and seizure of clothes are of no help to the prosecution. 18. The Supreme Court in case of Balwan Singh vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Anr., (2019) 7 SCC 781 , has clearly held that if 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 the blood group is not proved because of disintegration of blood. It reads thus :- 23. From the aforementioned discussion, we can summarise 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. The court will have to come to the conclusion based on the facts and circumstances of each case, and there cannot be any fixed formula that the prosecution has to prove, or need not prove, that the blood groups match. 19. The last circumstance of last seen together as relied by the learned trial Court is of no consequence because in the midnight at about 11:30 PM on 02.04.2012, the deceased was thrown out of the house of appellant as the deceased tried to outrage the modesty of niece of the appellant. 19. The last circumstance of last seen together as relied by the learned trial Court is of no consequence because in the midnight at about 11:30 PM on 02.04.2012, the deceased was thrown out of the house of appellant as the deceased tried to outrage the modesty of niece of the appellant. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was slapped by the appellant and on 03.04.2012 at about 05:00 AM; dead body of the deceased was seen by Sanhgu Ram (PW1). There is time gap of more than 05 hours between the alleged act of assault and recovery of the dead body and further, no corroborative material is available on record so as to completely establish or could point to the guilt of the appellant herein. 20. In the matter of Navneethakrishnan vs. State by Inspector of Police, (2018) 16 SCC 161 , their lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have clearly held that evidence of last seen is an important piece of evidence, but accused cannot be convicted solely on the basis of evidence of last seen together and it requires corroboration, which reads thus :- “18. …. It is a settled legal position that the law presumes that it is the person, who was last seen with the deceased, would have killed the deceased and the burden to rebut the same lies on the accused to prove that they had departed. Undoubtedly, the last seen theory is an important event in the chain of circumstances that would completely establish and/or could point to the guilt of the accused with some certainty. However, this evidence alone can't discharge the burden of establishing the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt and requires corroboration.” 21. In view of the judgments referred to above and in light of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, as such, we are of the considered opinion that prosecution has miserably failed in establishing the complete chain of circumstances so as to hold the appellant herein criminally liable for murder of the deceased. In that view of the matter, we have no hesitation in setting aside the impugned judgment recording conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and awarding life sentence. The appellant is acquitted of the charge punishable under Section 302 of IPC and he be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 22. In that view of the matter, we have no hesitation in setting aside the impugned judgment recording conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and awarding life sentence. The appellant is acquitted of the charge punishable under Section 302 of IPC and he be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 22. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is allowed.