JUDGMENT

Uday Umesh Lalit, J. - Leave granted.

2. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 09-05-2014 passed by the High Court of Chhatisgarh at Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No. 650/1999.

3. On the reporting made by PW-2 Thuran Singh, father of one Shiv Kumar Khairwar that his son had gone to a Paddy Milling Centre at about 3.00 p.m. on 13.01.1997 and had since then been missing, a crime against unknown persons was registered. After the body of said Shiv Kumar Khairwar was recovered from a pond on 17.01.1997, the crime was converted to one under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('the IPC', for short).

4. The appellant came to be arrested in said crime on 20.01.1997 and soon after his arrest, certain recoveries on the strength of his statement were stated to have been effected.

5. Leaving aside the recoveries, the prosecution principally relied upon the testimony of following witnesses:

(A) PW-3 Birja Singh, younger brother of the deceased, was a student of Vth class when he was examined. The witness stated that on the relevant day he had gone along with the deceased on a bicycle for milling of paddy; and that after the paddy was milled at the place one Ullekh Prasad, he went home with the milled paddy, while the deceased remained at the place of Ullekh Prasad.

(B) PW-8 Ullekh Prasad in his examination in Chief stated as under:

"1. The incident had occurred about one and quarter year back. Shiv Kumar , Birja Singh and Bisan Singh had come to my mill for the purpose of grinding the paddy. After grinding one gunny bag paddy I had allowed him to go. Birja and Bisan Singh went with the rice bag. At the hotel of Laxman, Shiv Kumar ate the snacks. After sometimes I saw that Shiv Kumar had gone with Nandu."

(C) PW-19 Rajkeshwar in his examination-in-chief stated that he had lent his bicycle to the deceased but the bicycle was not returned.

Neither Bisan Singh nor anyone from the hotel of Laxman was examined.

Recoveries comprised of a key of bicycle, the weapon of offence as well as blood-stained clothes of the deceased and the appellant.

6. Relying on the evidence led by the Prosecution, the Trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC and awarded him life sentence under the first count and imprisonment for seven years under the second count.

7. The appellant being aggrieved, filed Criminal Appeal No. 650 of 1999 in the High Court, which came to be dismissed by the judgment and order presently under challenge.

8. Ms. Minakshi Vij, learned advocate whose services have been engaged by the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee to appear on behalf of the appellant submits as under:-

(i) In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution had not alleged any motive on part of the appellant to commit murder of the deceased.

(ii) The only circumstance which was projected by the prosecution was the fact that at the place of Ullekh Prasad, the appellant was seen alongwith the deceased.

(iii) Based on the slender thread of evidence of "last seen", the entire case was built by the Prosecution.

(iv) The recoveries as alleged by the prosecution were effected seven days after the incident.

9. Mr. Gautam Narayan, learned advocate appearing for the State submits that the concurrent view taken by both the Courts below was based on the evidence on record and that the recoveries at the instance of the appellant conclusively established his culpability.

10. In a case based on substantial evidence, motive assumes great significance. It is not as if motive alone becomes the crucial link in the case to be established by the prosecution and in its absence the case of Prosecution must be discarded. But, at the same time, complete absence of motive assumes a different complexion and such absence definitely weighs in favour of the accused.

11. In Anwar Ali vs. State of Himachal Pradesh(2020) 10 SCC 166, this Court made the legal position clear in following words:-

24. Now so far as the submission on behalf of the accused that