JUDGMENT B.B. Misra, J. - These two appeals can be disposed of together as they have arisen out of the same judgment of the Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad and relate to the same incident. Each of the three appellants have been convicted under Section 460 and 380, I.P.C. and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- in default to six months' rigorous imprisonment under the former and to four years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- in default to six months' rigorous imprisonment under the latter. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. On the night of October 28/29, 1965 Smt. Ram Devi, widow of Gaya Din barber, who used to live alone in a Kotha of her dilapidated house in village Maudha, police station Mohammadabad, District Farrukhabad was murdered and some articles belonging to her were removed from her house. It is alleged that three appellants entered her house, committed theft of her belongings and strangulated her to death, the actual strangulation having been done by the appellant Lallan. It is said that about 5 a.m. in the morning of October 29, 1965 they were seen when they were trying run away with the stolen property. On being given a chase two of the appellants, namely, Vedpal and Ram Sanehi succeeded in escaping after leaving the stolen articles but the appellant Lallan was arrested along with the stolen articles which he was taking away. It is said that after his arrest Lallan made an extra judicial confession in which he gave out as to how all the three appellants had entered the house of Smt. Ram Devi and had stolen away her belongings. He further told the village people that he himself had strangulated Smt. Ram Devi to death when she got awake. The Pradhan Ram Autar had also arrived there at that time and the extra judicial confession was made in his presence. He went to the police station Mohammadabad which was at a distance of about three miles and lodged the report there at 10-30 a.m. The S. I. Shri Bhagwat Singh went to the place of occurrence. He sent the dead body of Smt. Ram Devi for post mortem examination. He took charge of the appellant Lallan who had been arrested. He went to the police station Mohammadabad which was at a distance of about three miles and lodged the report there at 10-30 a.m. The S. I. Shri Bhagwat Singh went to the place of occurrence. He sent the dead body of Smt. Ram Devi for post mortem examination. He took charge of the appellant Lallan who had been arrested. He also took in his possession the alleged stolen articles which the villagers had taken from the possession of Lallan and also those which had been left by the other two appellants, Vedpal and Ram Sanehi. After completing the investigation he challaned all the three appellants. 3. All the three appellants denied the allegations made against them. Lallan denied his arrest on the spot. He also denied to have made any confession. The other two assailants alleged that they have been falsely implicated at the instance of the Pradhan who is inimical to them. 4. It cannot be doubted that Smt. Ram Devi was done to death sometime after mid-night in the night of October 28/29, 1965 by strangulation. On post mortem examination the following injuries were found on the dead body of Smt. Ram Devi: 1. Abraded ligature mark, 10" x 1" on the front and both sides of the neck, below the thyroid cartilage placed transversely. 2. Lacerated wound, 1" x " x muscle, on the right side of the lower lip (mucal surface). 3. Lacerated wound, 1" x " x muscle, on the right side of the upper lip (mucal surface). 4. Scratch, 3/2" x line on the left side of upper lip, front surface. 5. Abrasion, " x " on the left cheek, front surface. Dr. M. R. Khetrapal who conducted the post mortem examination of Smt. Ram Devi was of the opinion that Smt. Ram Devi was possibly murdered after midnight in the night between October 28129, 1965. 5. In order to prove that it were the appellants who were responsible for the strangulation of Smt. Ram Devi the prosecution relied on two kinds of evidence, one consisting of extra judicial confession made by Lallan and the other of witnesses who had seen the three appellants when they were trying to make good their escape with the stolen property. 6. 6. In fact, it is the extra judicial confession which gives the entire prosecution story, otherwise there is no evidence to connect the appellants with the crime. Admittedly, the alleged extra judicial confession was made before the Pradhan Ram Autar (P.W. 1) and two other witnesses Maheshwar Singh (P. W. 2) and Brijraj Singh (P. W. 3). Ram Autar stated in his cross-examination that at first the appellant Lallan told him that he had not done anything and that he was being falsely implicated but when he told him that if he told the correct thing to him he would get him acquitted and it was then that Lallan made the statement to him. Under Section 24 of the Evidence Act a confession made by an accused person is irrelevant in a criminal proceeding, if the making of the confession appears to the Court to have been caused by any inducement, threat or promise, having reference to the charge against the accused person, proceeding from a person in authority and sufficient, in the opinion of the Court, to give the accused person grounds, which would appear to him reasonable for supposing that by making it he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of temporal nature in reference to the proceedings against him. From the statement of Ram Autar (P. W. 1) given above it is quite clear that he had promised to Lallan that he would get him acquitted. It has to be seen if Ram Autar (P.W. 1) can be considered to be a person in authority being the Pradhan of the village. Under Section 12(7) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 the Pradhan is ex-officio member of the Gaon Panchayat. Sec. 15 lays down the duty of every Gaon Panchayat. Under the various functions to be discharged by the Gaon Panchayat the administration of civil and criminal justice has also been included under Section 15 (o). It would thus appear that the Pradhan being a member of the Gaon Panchayat exercises his powers in the administration of civil and criminal justice. That being so, he clearly comes within the phrase `a person in authority'. It follows, therefore, that a confession made to him would be inadmissible in evidence. Consequently the alleged extra judicial confession said to have been made by the appellant Lallan to the Pradhan Ram Autar cannot be taken into account. 7. That being so, he clearly comes within the phrase `a person in authority'. It follows, therefore, that a confession made to him would be inadmissible in evidence. Consequently the alleged extra judicial confession said to have been made by the appellant Lallan to the Pradhan Ram Autar cannot be taken into account. 7. The second piece of evidence consists of the statements of Maheshwar Singh (P.W. 2) and Brijraj Singh (P. W. 3) who stated to have seen the three appellants running away with the stolen properties. They also stated that the appellants Vedpal and Ram Sanehi left the articles which they were carrying and% that the appellant Lallan was arrested on the spot, and that some stolen articles were recovered from his possession. Their statements do not inspire confidence. Both these witnesses stated that they saw the appellants at about 5 a.m. It is rather hard to believe that the appellants would have stayed there after committing the crime till about sunrise and thus expose themselves to be seen by the witnesses. The reason why these witnesses have come forward to depose against the appellants is not far to seek. Both these witnesses themselves admitted that there were two parties in the village at the time of election of Pradhanship. One party was of Thakurs and the other of Ahirs. Thakurs supported the Pradhan Ram Autar and Ahirs supported Baburam. Both these witnesses are Thakurs whereas two of the appellants, namely, Vedpal and Ram Sanehi are Ahirs. That being so, it may well be that these two witnesses are deposing against the appellants because of that animosity. Brijraj Singh (P.W. 3) is not such a person on whom it would safe to rely. He appears to be a pet witness of police. He himself admitted at he had appeared for police in three-four cases and that he did not remember he did so in one or two cases more, the presence of Maheshwar Singh (P.W. 2) also has been made doubtful by Is own statement. Before the sessions court he stated that he was going to plough his field with bullocks whereas in the court of committing Magistrate he stated that his son had gone for ploughing the field. Consequently it would not be safe to rely on the statements of the above two witnesses. 8. Before the sessions court he stated that he was going to plough his field with bullocks whereas in the court of committing Magistrate he stated that his son had gone for ploughing the field. Consequently it would not be safe to rely on the statements of the above two witnesses. 8. It would thus appear that there is practically no evidence against the appellants to connect them with the murder of Smt. Ram Devi and the theft committed at her house. 9. The appeal is allowed. The convictions and sentences of the three appellants are set aside. They have been on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds are cancelled.