1 2025:CGHC:59882-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No.1874 of 2018 The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Operative Full 12.09.2025 10.12.2025 -- 10.12.2025 1 - Sadan Ram, S/o Samaylal Aged About 30 Years 2 - Kul Bhadur S/o Ram Gahan Aged About 40 Years Both R/o Village Davna, Police Station Jhilmili, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh Appellant (s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Jhilmili Surajpur District Surajpur Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) CRA No.173 of 2019 1 - Jhunnulal S/o Bigan Ram Paikra Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Dawna, Police Station Jhilmil District Surajpur Chhattisgarh Appellant (s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Jhilmil, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) 2 CRA No. 204 of 2019 1 - Govardhan Paikra S/o Late Man Sai Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Davna, Police Station Jhilmili, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh Appellant (s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Jhilmili, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) For Appellant (s) : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Mr. Anil Gulati and Mr. Tarun Dansena, Advocates For Respondent (s) : Mr. Ajay Pandey, GA Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad C A V Judgment Per Rajani Dubey J. 1. Since all three appeals arise out of common judgment of conviction and order of sentence, therefore, the same have been clubbed together, heard together and are being decided by a common order. 2. The present appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.11.2018 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Session Judge, Surajpur (C.G.) in ST No.38/2017, whereby the appellants have been convicted under Sections 302, 120-B & 201 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/-, life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/- and RI for 7 years with fine of Rs.1000/-, respectively, with default stipulations. Digitally signed by R NIRALA 3 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant Muleshwar lodged a merg intimation at Police Station Jhilmili alleging that on 18/3/2017 at about 5 PM, the appellant Kul Bahadur called the deceased Gorelal for dinner at his home upon which the deceased Gorelal went to his house along with co-accused Govardhan Paikra, Jagdev Paikra and Jhunnulal where they took the dinner and thereafter the accused returned back to home but the deceased did not return home. On the next day the family members of deceased searched the deceased and found his slippers near well of Ramlal Dewangan and found the deceased body in well, upon which a case was registered against the accused persons and they were arrested. After investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Magistrate concerned. On the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and material available on record, learned trial court convicted the accused/appellants, as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. 4. Learned counsels for the appellants submit that the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and material available on record. There are material omissions and contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The independent witness PW-2 Manish has not supported the case of the prosecution and has turned hostile. The memorandum and seizure witnesses PW-7 Murli Prasad Gupta and PW-12 Vijay Gupta have also not supported the case of the 4 prosecution and have turned hostile. On mere recovery of gandasa on the instance of appellant Sadan Ram, the appellants cannot be convicted, because the same is not connected to the crime, as no serologist or any other report has been placed on record to show that the crime was committed from the said weapon. The learned court below failed to consider that the last seen theory has not established in the present case, as there is time gap in the last seen and the time at which the deceased body was recovered. The chain of circumstances is also not complete so as to lead to only one conclusion i.e. about the guilt of the accused persons and thus, the impugned order of conviction and sentence deserved to be set-aside. Therefore, the appeals deserve to be allowed. Reliance has been placed on the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Surendra Kumar and others vs State of U.P., reported in (2021) 20 SCC 430, Rajender and others vs State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2019) 10 SCC 623, Padman Bibhar vs State of Odisha, reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1190 and the judgment rendered by this Court in the matter of Faganuram @ Gobha vs State of Chhattisgarh, reported in 2017 SCC Online Chh 1055. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment and submits that the learned Trial Court has minutely appreciated the evidence available on record and has rightly convicted the appellants. Therefore, the appeals are liable to be 5 dismissed. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. It is clear from the record of the learned Trial Court that the learned Trial Court framed charges under Sections 302, 120-B & 201 of IPC against the appellants Sadan Ram, Kul Bahadur, Govardhan and against the appellant Jhunnu Lal under Section 120-B of IPC and against the co-accused Jagdev under Section 302 of IPC and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned Trial Court acquitted the co-accused Jagdev and convicted and sentenced the appellants, as mentioned in para 2 of the judgment. 8. The first question we have to consider is that whether the death of deceased Gorelal was homicidal in nature or not? 9. PW-1 C. R. Rajwade, S.I., Police Station Surajpur stated that on 19.03.2017 Muhleshwar informed about the death of Gorelal by sinking in well. He lodged merg intimation No.10/2017 (Ex-P/1). He issued notice to witnesses (Ex-P/2) and prepared inquest (Ex- P/3). 10. PW-6 Motilal Dewangan and Murli Prasad Gupta (PW-7) admitted their signatures on notice (Ex-P/2) and inquest memo (Ex-P/3). They stated that C. R. Rajwade gave application for postmortem vide Ex-P/4. 11. Dr. Vikas Gupta (PW-13) conducted postmortem of deceased and he discussed the injuries sustained by the deceased as 6 under:- " बⰾहय पर぀्䵌ण- म⹃तक क शर぀ र぀ अक़㱟 ह㥁 आ थ┾। द♋ो䬪 आखᙇ एव㔂 म⹃ह㥁 बⰂद♋ थ┾। म⹃ल ्䵛य⼾र぀ पर぀ म⹃ल 04 ो䬪ह㥁 म⹃!ज᱂द♋ ो䬪ह㥁 थ┾ तथ┾ न⠿ो䬪म⹍ो䬪 चᩋे䜡' पई गई थ┾ - 1 स㠿+र぀ क प छᭇ भⴾग पर぀ इन⡍+ईज᱂ गण⍍ड आकर぀ 3 +.म⹃ . लम⹍बⰂ ग2ण⍇ 2 +म⹃ गह㥁र぀ थ┾ एव㔂 1 +.म⹃ . चᩋ!़㱟 थ┾। 2 उपर぀्䴹 चᩋे䜡 + लग ह㥁 ई एक और぀ चᩋे䜡 ४ +प म⹃' म⹃!ज᱂द♋ थ┾. स㠿ज᱂+क ह㥁ड बⰂल आकर぀ 2 ग2ण⍇ 2 +.म⹃ . एव㔂 ो䬪 चᩋ व㔂ल आकर぀ 1 + म⹃ थ┾। आतर〿र぀क पर぀ ्䵌ण⍇ म⹃तक क शर぀ र぀ स㡍व㔂स㡍थ╍य⼾ थ┾। खᙇप़㱟 क अद♋र぀ थ┾़㱟 चᩋे䜡 थ┾। स㠿+ቤ撍 म⹃' कई चᩋे䜡 ो䬪ह㥁 थ┾। म⹃ቜ岌स㡍तष㝍क एव㔂 म⹃र぀ र぀जᱍज᱂ क अद♋र぀ स㠿@ቤ撍 क बⰂ चᩋ म⹃' र぀्䴹 ग!ज᱂द♋ थ┾। पर぀द♋, प+ल . कम⹃ल+, फ⭁2 फ⭁B त म⹃' कई ो䬪ह㥁 थ┾. द♋न⠿ह㥁ो䬪 एव㔂 बⰂय⼾ फ⭁ फ⭁़㱟 कन⡍ज᱂स㡍े䜡ड थ┾। ह㥃द♋य⼾ क द♋ो䬪 चᩋम⹍बⰂर぀ म⹃' र぀्䴹 म⹃!ज᱂द♋ थ┾। पर぀द♋, आत कD स㠿@ቤ撍 , म⹃ह㥁 तथ┾ ቇ䞋+ो䬪ल म⹃' कई चᩋे䜡 ो䬪ह㥁 थ┾। पे䜡 म⹃' अधपचᩋ भⴾज᱂ो䬪 म⹃!ज᱂द♋ थ┾. छᭇे䜡 आत खᙇल थ┾। बⰂ़㱟 आत म⹃' म⹃ल एव㔂 गG+ म⹃!ज᱂द♋ थ┾। न⠿व㔂क त, प⩍ल ह㥁, ग2द♋I कन⡍ज᱂स㡍े䜡'ड थ┾। म⹃ቔ咋शय⼾ म⹃' अल㉍प म⹃ቔ咋 म⹃' म⹃ቔ咋 म⹃!ज᱂द♋ थ┾। ज᱂ो䬪न⡍ቖ嚍 य⼾ स㡍व㔂स㡍थ╍य⼾ थ┾ ।" He opined that the injuries are anti mortam in nature. The cause of death is due to brain hemorrhage and coma owing to injuries No.1 & 2 and the nature of death is homicidal in nature. He gave his report (Ex-P/15). He denied this suggestion that while falling down and dashing on sharp stone, the injuries sustained by the deceased may come. Nothing came out in his postmortem to negate the fact that the nature of death is not homicidal in nature, therefore, the prosecution has proved this fact beyond reasonable doubt that death of deceased is homicidal in nature, as such the learned Trial Court has rightly found that the death of deceased is homicidal in nature. 12. Now we have to consider that whether the accused/appellants 7 have committed murder of deceased and to save themselves threw his dead body in the well. 13. It is clear that this case is based on circumstantial evidence. The learned Trial Court on the basis of last seen, memorandum and seizure and conduct of accused persons convicted the appellants. 14. PW-3 Sumitra, wife of deceased Gorelal, stated that on 18.03.2017 at about 6 pm evening, the accused Kul Bahadur came to her house to take her husband with him, upon which he went with him but he did not return. Next day her mother-in-law, sister-in-law and she went to the house of Jhunnu Lal to enquire about him but they did not find him. Thereafter Bhuvneshwar and Sanjana went to the house of Kul Bahadur to enquire Gorelal, then Jhunnu Lal told that slipper of Gorelal is lying in the bush of Ramlal and upon search by Bhuvneshwar in the well, dead body of Gorelal was found, thereafter matter was reported to the concerned police station and dead body of Gorelal was recovered from well. She further stated that her husband was having money transaction with Jhunnulal and there was dispute between her husband and Sadan regarding society rice. She admitted this suggestion of prosecution that her husband went to to the house of Kulbahadur along with him on motorcycle. She also admitted that in the night, her husband took dinner there along with Jhunnuram, Goverdhan, Sadan, Bhuvneshwar and Anand. She admitted this suggestion of defence that her 8 husband used to consume liquor and came late in night. She also admitted this suggestion that prior to 4-5 months of the incident, one boy had also died by sinking in the well. She also admitted that there is no boundary wall around the well. 15. PW-4 Maiya, wife of accused Kul Bahadur stated that Gorelal had come to her house and told that food will be made in her house. Sarpanch Jhunnulal, Sadan, Goverdhan and Anand had also come to her house. Gorelal had cooked chicken and after dinner, they all went. The prosecution declared her hostile and cross-examined her then she admitted this suggestion of prosecution that she had provided spices to Gorelal for making chicken. She also admitted that her husband had brought 2-3 bottles countrymade liquor but she denied her police statement (Ex-P/10) on A to A and B to B part. In para 5 she admitted this suggestion of defence that all the accused persons after taking meal went to their home. She also stated that there is no boundary wall around the well and prior to the incident, one boy had also died by sinking in the well. 16. Aarad Paikra (PW-5), brother of deceased Gorelal stated that that Gorelal had gone to the house of accused Kul Bahadur. Jhunnulal, Sadan, Goverdhan and Anand were also there and they all eaten food and quarrel took place between Gorelal and Sadan and subsequently he came to know that the dead body of deceased was found in the well. He admitted his signatures on seizure memo (Ex-P/7). 9 17. Murli Prasad Gupta (PW-7) stated that the police had given him notice for panchnama proceedings vide Ex-P/2. The police prepared map panchnama (Ex-P/3) in front of him and other punchs. Gadasa was seized vide Ex-P/12 on the memorandum of accused Goverdhan Paikra vide Ex-P/11 and he admitted his signatures on A to A part of the same. The memorandum of accused Sadan Ram was also taken vide Ex-P/13 and he admitted his signatures on A to A part of the same and gadasa was presented by the accused Sadan Ram at the police station which was seized vide Ex-P/14 and he admitted his signatures on A to A part of the same. The red colour motorcycle was also seized from the house of accused Kul Bahadur vide seizure memo (Ex-P/15). The prosecution declared him hostile and cross-examined him then he denied this suggestion that seizure of gadasa from accused Sadan Ram was not made. He self stated that the memorandum of the accuses was taken in the village. He denied this suggestion of prosecution that statements of Goverdhan Paikar was taken at police station. He also stated that he does not know whether seizure of torch was done or not. He admitted this suggestion that Sadan Pakra had told in his memorandum that he has hidden the gadasa under the paddy in the house of Kul Bahadur from which he assaulted Gorelal but he denied this suggestion that as per the memorandum of Sadan Paikra, seizure of gadasa was done in front of him from the house of Kul Bahadur. 10 18. Yogeshwar Singh (PW-8) stated that Jhunnulal had taken him to the house of Kul Bahadur on his red colour motorcycle which was driven by Jhunnul and went the house of Kul Bahadur where the deceased Gorelal, Kulbahadur and Goverdhan were there and Gorelal was cooking chicken and after sometime Sadan also came upon which Gorelal told that who invited Sadan and he should not have been here thereafter they all took dinner and after taking dinner they were ready to go to their house, whereas Gorelal was there and he told them that he would go by his own bike and thereafter he and others went to the their house. 19. Anand Paikra (PW-9) stated that he gone to the house of Kul Bahadur for eating chicken where the deceased Gorelal, Kulbahadur and Goverdhan were there and Gorelal was cooking chicken and after sometime Sadan also came upon which Gorelal told that who invited Sadan and he should not have been here thereafter they all took dinner and after taking dinner they were ready to go to their house, whereas Gorelal was there and he told them that he would go by his own bike and thereafter he and others went to the their house 20. Ishwar Paikra (PW-10) admitted his signatures on seizure memo (Ex-P/10). The prosecution declared him hostile and cross- examined him then he admitted this suggestion that one Nokia mobile and one aluminium dekchi was seized from the well. 21. Muleshwar Paikra (PW-11) stated that during the intervening 11 night of the incident, the deceased Gorelal did not come to the house, then on the next day he had gone to the house of Kul Bahadur for his search but Kul Bahadur was not at house, thereafter he went to the house of Sadan Ram but he was not at his home, then he returned his home. Subsequently he came to know that the dead body of deceases was recovered from the well and thereafter report was lodged by him at the police station vide Ex-P/1. He admitted this suggestion of defence that the well from which dead body of Gorelal was recovered is of Ramlal. 22. Vijay Kumar (PW-12) admitted his signatures on memorandum of Goverdhan Paikra (Ex-P/11), seizure (Ex-P/12), memorandum of Sadan Ram (Ex-P/13) and seizure (Ex-P/14). The prosecution declared him hostile but he denied all suggestions of prosecution In his cross-examination he stated that in Ex-P/11 to Ex-P/14, he did signatures at the police station and the police did not tell him as to why they are taking his signatures. 23. Rameshwar (PW-14), father of deceased Gorelal, stated that his son used to do the work of giving rice at society. Sadan Ram had asked him rice upon which he would not give rice before photograph, upon which a quarrel took place between them. At the time of incident his son did not want to go to the house of Kul Bahadur but on his insistence by saying that Jhunnulal had called he went there but Gorelal did not return in the night. Next day he along with his family members tried to search Gorelal but could not find him, then Jhunnulal told that slipper of Gorelal is lying 12 near well of Ramlal where he and his family members and other villagers went there and upon search in the well his dead body was found, thereafter matter was reported to the police station and dead body was recovered from the well and there was wound cut of gadasa behind the neck of Gorelal. 24. 24. Close scrutiny of the statement of all the witnesses shows that in the night of incident all the accused/appellants went to the house of accused Kul Bahadur and had dinner. Thereafter Gorelal did not reach to the house and his dead body was found in the well. PW-8 Yogeshwar Singh and PW-9 Anand Paikra stated that they also had dinner with Gorelal and the appellants and as per Yogeshwar Singh, he had gone to the house of Kul Bahadur on his red colour motorcycle along with Jhunnulal. PW-9 Anand Paikra also stated that he gone to the house of Kul Bahadur on Jhunnulal’s saying where the accused persons and Yogeshwar were there and they all took dinner, thereafter they went to their home. Thereafter in his memorandum (Ex-P/11), Goverdhan disclosed the incident and he stated in last line as under:- “ ……eSa dqycgknqj daoj lnu iSdjk txnso mQZ xna/kk pkjks feydj xksjs yky iSdjk dh yk’k dks mBkdj eSa gkFk esa j[kk VkpZ dks tykdj jkLrk fn[kkrs gq, jkeyky ds dqavk esa Mky fn;s fQj ogka ls ge yksx Hkkx x,A yk’k dks dqavk esa Mkyus ys tkrs le; ftl VkpZ ls jks’kuh fn[kk;k Fkk ml VkpZ dks eSa vius ?kj ds dejs esa fNik dj j[kk gwW] pfy;s py dj cjken djk nsrk gWwA” As per this memorandum (Ex-P/11), one torch was seized as per seizure memo (Ex-P/12). 25. In the memorandum of Sadan Kumar (Ex-P/13) recorded by the 13 Investigating Officer, he disclosed chopper/axe (gadasa) and stated as under:- “----eSa ftl yksgs ds xMklk ls ekjdj xksjsyky iSdjk dh gR;k fd;k gWw mls dqycgknqj ds ?kj esa /kku cksjk esa Nqik fn;k gWw pfy;s py dj cjken djk nsrk gwwwWA” As per this memorandum (Ex-P/13), one gadasa was seized from the house of accused Sadan as per seizure memo (Ex-P/14). 26. PW-7 Murli Prasad and Vijay Kumar (PW-12) admitted their signatures on memorandum of Goverdhan (Ex-P/11) and seizure (Ex-P/12), but it is clear that the memorandum of Goverdhan is only with regard to a torch and how this torch is connected with crime is not proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. Murli Prasad and Vijay admitted their signatures on memorandum of Sadan (Ex-P/13) and seizure (Ex-P/14) but as per this memorandum Sadan disclosed that gadasa was hidden in the house of the house of Kul Bahadur but as per seizure (Ex- P/14) it was recovered from the house of Sadan Paikra but in para 12 thereof it is written as under:- “------lnujke daoj }kjk vius eseksjs.Me esa crk;s x;s dqycgknqj daoj ds ?kj ls fudkydj is’k djus ij le{k xokgku tIr dj 'khycUn dj otg lcwr esa dCtk iqfyl fy;k x;kA”. 27. Murli Prasad Gupta (PW-7) stated that Sadan Ram had presented gadasa before the police station but denied this suggestion of prosecution that seizure of gadasa was done in front of him as per the memorandum of Sadan Ram. Vijay Kumar (PW-12) only admitted his signatures and he denied any 14 memorandum before him. 28. The Investigating Officer M. R. Kashyap (PW-16) recorded memorandum and seizure of both the appellants Sadan Ram and Kul Bahadur. He denied this suggestion of defence that he prepared the documents on his own but he admitted this suggestion that there is no boundary wall around the well. As per FSL report, human blood was found in Article-A gadasa but this FSL report was not exhibited during examination and in the accused’s statement no question was asked in this regard that human blood was found in seized article. Both memorandum and seizure witnesses have not supported the memorandum and seizure but it is also clear from Ex-P/13 & Ex-P/14 that in Ex-P/13 the appellant Sadan disclosed that gadasa was hidden in the house of Kul Bahadur but as per seizure (Ex-P/14) the same was seized from the house of Sadan Ram. 29. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Padman Bibhar (supra) held in paras 17, 20 & 21 as under:- “17. PW-13(Mahadev Sikaka) is also a witness of 'last seen together'. He saw the appellant and deceased going towards village Madhapadar at around 12 noon and after some time he saw the appellant returning alone and then asked him about the deceased to which he did not reply and after asking for three to four times, he replied that he had gone nearby village for some work and thereafter the appellant hurriedly took his bath and went away. According to this witness, the appellant's wife (Sanju Bihar) is cousin of the deceased. After marriage, the appellant had gone to Kerala and did not return. When his wife fell ill and was taken to the hospital by her relatives, the appellant returned from Kerala and suspected his wife's illicit relations with a covillager and due to anger, he had 15 killed Akash. However, in cross-examination, he admits that the police had not recorded his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Therefore, this fact about motive is narrated by him for the first time in court hence the same cannot be relied upon. Interestingly, PW-3 father of the deceased has not stated anything about the motive in his examination-in-chief. According to PW-3, the appellant is his nephew being son of his brother-in- law. Thus, the appellant and PW-3 are close relative. 20. This Court in Kanhaiya Lal vs. State of Rajasthan6 has held that evidence on 'last seen together' is a weak piece of evidence and conviction only on the basis of 'last seen together' without there being any other corroborative evidence against the accused, is not sufficient to convict the accused for an offence under Section 302 IPC. The following passage from the judgment in paras 12 and 15 can be profitably referred: "12. The circumstance of last seen together does not by itself and necessarily lead to the inference that it was the accused who committed the crime. There must be something more establishing connectivity between the accused and the crime. Mere nonexplanation on the part of the appellant, in our considered opinion, by itself cannot lead to proof of guilt against the appellant. 15. The theory of last seen-the appellant having gone with the deceased in the manner noticed hereinbefore, is the singular piece of circumstantial evidence available against him. The conviction of the appellant cannot be maintained merely on suspicion, however strong it may be, or on his conduct. These facts assume further importance on account of absence of proof of motive particularly when it is proved that there was cordial relationship between the accused and the deceased for a long time. The fact situation bears great similarity to that in Madho Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (2010) 15 SCC 588." 21. Similarly, this Court in Rambraksh @ Jalim vs. State of Chhattisgarh7 has reiterated above legal position in the following words in paras 12 and 13: "12. It is trite law that a conviction cannot be recorded against the accused merely on the ground that the accused was last seen with the deceased. In other words, a conviction cannot be based on the only circumstance of last seen together. Normally, last seen theory comes into play where the time gap, between the point of time when the accused and the deceased 16 were seen last alive and when the deceased is found dead, is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the perpetrator of the crime becomes impossible. To record a conviction, the last seen together itself would not be sufficient and the prosecution has to complete the chain of circumstances to bring home the guilt of the accused. 13. In a similar fact situation this Court in Krishnan v. State of T.N. (2014) 12 SCC 279 held as follows: (SCC pp. 284-85, paras 21-24) "21. The conviction cannot be based only on circumstance of last seen together with the deceased. In Arjun Marik v. State of Bihar (1994) Supp (2) SCC 372 this Court held as follows: (SCC p. 385, para 31) '31. Thus the evidence that the appellant had gone to Sitaram in the evening of 19-7-1985 and had stayed in the night at the house of deceased Sitaram is very shaky and inconclusive. Even if it is accepted that they were there it would at best amount to be the evidence of the appellants having been seen last together with the deceased. But it is settled law that the only circumstance of last seen will not complete the chain of circumstances to record the finding that it is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and, therefore, no conviction on that basis alone can be founded.' 22. This Court in Bodhraj v. State of J&K, (2002) 8 SCC 45 held that: (SCC p. 63, para 31) '31. The last seen theory comes into play where the time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible.' It will be hazardous to come to a conclusion of guilt in cases where there is no other positive evidence to conclude that the accused and the deceased were last seen together. 23. There is unexplained delay of six days in lodging the FIR. As per prosecution story the deceased Manikandan was last seen on 4-4-2004 at Vadakkumelur Village during Panguni Uthiram Festival at Mariyamman Temple. The body of the deceased was taken from the borewell by the fire service personnel after more than seven days. There is no other positive material on record to show that the deceased was last seen together with the accused and in the intervening period of seven days there was nobody in contact with the deceased. 17 24. In Jaswant Gir v. State of Punjab, (2005) 12 SCC 438, this Court held that in the absence of any other links in the chain of circumstantial evidence, the appellant cannot be convicted solely on the basis of "last seen together" even if version of the prosecution witness in this regard is believed." 30. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Surendra Kumar (supra) held in paras 22 & 23 as under:- “22. Similarly for the husband Ramveer, there is no direct evidence to establish his role in the incident. As his conviction is entirely based on a conspiracy theory, it is essential to determine whether there was an agreement between the parties for doing an unlawful act and it must emerge clearly from evidence that there was meeting of mind towards a common goal between Ramveer and his brother and also between Ramveer and the two armed robbers. The case evidence on record does not however establish any such agreement between Ramveer and the other Accused Conspiracy is a matter of inference and inference must be based on solid evidence. In case of any doubt the benefit must inevitably go to the Accused The 2nd Appellant's conviction simply because of his dislike for the deceased, even if accepted to be correct, would not in our opinion be justified in the absence of any evidence either direct or of conspiracy, to link him with the crime. 23. The conspiracy theory to kill Kamla Rani, only because she was not liked by her husband is far too improbable to accept since the prosecution failed to present any evidence to show meeting of minds and common intention of all Accused. Ramveer may not have been happy with his wife but this by itself does not establish that he hatched a conspiracy with his brother Surendra and his father Om Prakash (who died during trial), to kill Kamla Rani. The simple fact of being unhappy with a person even if accepted, do not provide a strong enough motive to hatch a conspiracy to eliminate the person. But this aspect was ignored by the Court below to attribute motive for the murder. In our assessment the motive element in the chain of circumstances is not acceptable and the benefit of the broken link must be made available to the Appellants.” 18 31. This Court in Faganuram (supra) held in paras 9 & 10 as under:- “9. In this case there appears to be no direct evidence to show the involvement of the accused/appellant in the commission of murder of the deceased. Nobody is stated to have seen him executing the crime in question. Only the circumstantial evidence such as memorandum of the accused Ex. P-8 where he has spoken to have killed the deceased out of anger as she did not follow his words and went to participate in the folk dance; and the seizure of blood stained axe made under Ex. P-9, has been made the basis for holding the accused guilty under Section 302 IPC. Even the witness (PW-2) who lodged the FIR and the merg has stated in his evidence that he was not aware of the name of the assailant nor did the accused tell him anything about the deceased. Mother of the deceased who was present in the house along with the accused throughout the night too has not stated anything against the accused/appellant and has turned hostile. However, to the misfortune of the accused/appellant herein, while arriving at the conclusion of his guilt the Court below has overlooked the settled legal position that in the cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused - Sattatiya @ Satish Rajanna Kartalla Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 3 SCC 210. No doubt, that FSL report confirms the presence of blood on the axe so seized but this alone cannot be made a basis to connect the accused/appellant with the crime in question. Unless it is proved by the report of a serologist that the said blood was human blood and that too of the blood group of the deceased, seizure of blood stained axe is of no significance. While dealing with the question involving seizure of blood stained articles it has been held by the Apex Court in the matter of Kansa Behera Vs. State of Orissa, AIR 1987 SC 1507 as under: “11. As regards the recovery of a shirt or a dhoti with blood stains which according to the serologist report were stained with human blood but there is no evidence in the report of the serologist about the group of the blood and therefore it could not positively be connected with the deceased. In the evidence of the Investigating Officer or in the report, it is not clearly mentioned as to 19 what were the dimensions of the stains of blood. Few small blood stains on the cloths of a person may even be of his own blood especially if it is a villager putting on these clothes and living in villages. The evidence about the blood group is only conclusive to connect the blood stains with the deceased. That evidence is absent and in this view of the matter, in our opinion, even this is not a circumstance on the basis of which any inference could be drawn.” 10. In the case in hand, even the witnesses to memorandum and seizure have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile.” 32. In light of the above, it is clear that except dinner of deceased and the appellants together, no clinching or legally admissible evidence has been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt against the appellants. The memorandum and seizure have not been supported by the independent witnesses and seizure of torch is also of no use. The prosecution seized gadasa on the memorandum of accused Sadan Ram (Ex-P/13) who stated that the same was hidden in the house of accused Kul Bahadur, whereas the same was seized from the house of Sadan Ram as per seizure (Ex-P/14). It is also clear from the record of prosecution that the FSL report was not exhibited and no question was asked in the statements of accused regarding FSL report and all witnesses admitted this suggestion of defence that well is without boundary and prior to the incident, one person had also died by sinking in the well. The prosecution has absolutely failed to prove any criminal conspiracy as such we are of the considered opinion that several components in the chain of circumstantial evidence are missing there and the prosecution 20 has utterly failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellants 33. Consequently, all the appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges under Sections 302, 120-B & 201 of IPC. 34. The appellants are reported to be on bail. 35. Keeping in view the provisions of section 481 of BNSS 2023, the appellants are directed to furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- each before the court concerned forthwith, which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellants on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 36. The Trial Court’s record along with the copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- Sd/- Rajani Dubey Amitendra Kishore Prasad Judge Judge Nirala