JUDGMENT : M.P. Verma, J. 1. Both these appeals have been heard together because they arise out of the same ORDER :of conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Judge of Darbhanga, and this JUDGMENT : will govern them both. Criminal Appeal No. 398 of 1968 has been filed by Dukharan Mian in this Court, and he is represented by Mr. S.C. Chakravarty, Advocate. Criminal Appeal No. 495 of 1968 has been preferred by Bateri Mahto and Habib Nadaf, along with the said Dukharan Mian, through Jail, and in this, case Mr. Jamuna Prasad, Advocate, has appeared as an amicus curiae on behalf of appellants. Bateri Mahto and Habib Nadaf, appellant Dukharan being represented by Mr. Chakravarty in the presented appeal. 2. All the aforesaid three appellants have been found guilty of an offence under Section 302/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. They were also tried for an offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, but they were acquitted of that charge. 3. In Village Madhwapatti or Arer, Police Station Benipatti, in the district of Darbhanga, there lived Gokhul Kamat and his nephew, Rajeshwar Kamat (P.W. 1). Jagtarni, daughter of Gokhul, was married in village Dumri, Police Station Madhubani, which is about five miles away from village Arer. She had no child and she was aged about 18 years at the time of occurrence. She had come to her father's place some 17 or 18 days before the date of occurrence (2nd March, 1967). At about 4 P.M. on that day, she went out to scrape grass with a Khurpi and a basket. At about dusk, Jhari Lal (P.W. 2) was returning from Bishnupur and he saw a quarrel going on between Jagtarni and these three appellants in a field belonging to Rajchandra Missir. This field lay to the north of the village. Jhari Lal did not take this matter to be serious, and he asked them not to quarrel. Jagtarni did not return home that evening. Rajeshwar (P.W. 1) then went out in search of her in the fields, but with no result. Next morning, Rajeshwar met Jhari Lal who told him that, in the previous evening, he had seen an altercation between Jagtarni and these three appellants. Jagtarni did not return home that evening. Rajeshwar (P.W. 1) then went out in search of her in the fields, but with no result. Next morning, Rajeshwar met Jhari Lal who told him that, in the previous evening, he had seen an altercation between Jagtarni and these three appellants. Then, Rajeshwar proceeded towards that field, being accompanied by Jhari Lal (P.W. 2), Mahabir Kamat (P.W. 4), Deonarain Kamat (P.W. 5), Radhe Kamat (P.W. 11) and Ramphal Kamat (P.W. 12). To the adjacent south of the field of one Dhrup Missir, the wooden handle of the Khurpi was noticed. There the wheat plants were also found trampled. On further search, the party found enough blood in the adjacent field belonging to one Bhaiyajee, and they also noticed the iron part of the Khurpi with blood-stains thereon. Further south, in a Nala they discovered the dead body of Jagtarni covered with leaves. Rajeshwar went to the house of appellant Bateri, who lived in another Tola, while Radhe and Ramphal went to arrest the remaining two accused living in another Tola. All the appellants were brought to the school of the village, and it is said that they confessed their guilt before the Mukhiya. Injuries were found on the person of appellant Habib, and blood-stains were noticed on the other two appellants also. Rajeshwar then went to the police-station, with the Chaukidar, Fakirchand Paswan (P.W. 6), and lodged a first information report at 12-30 P.M. on 3rd March, 1967. P.W. 14 Kamta Prasad, Assistant Sub-inspector of Police, after recording the first information report, went to the place of occurrence at about 1-15 P.M. and reached there at 1-30 P.M. He held inquest over the dead body and sent the same to Madhubani for post mortem examination, which was held by P.W. 8 Dr. Sadhusaran Lal on 4th March, 1967 at 2-30 P.M. He found the following injuries on the dead body: (i) Incised Wound 4" x 2" obliquely on the upper part of the outer side of left arm. (ii) Incised wound 2" x 1" X bone deep obliquely on the right side of chin, (iii) Incised wound 1 " X 1" x 2" on the upper part of the right side of heck. (iv) incised wound 1" x 1/2" X muscle deep on the middle of the left side of neck. (ii) Incised wound 2" x 1" X bone deep obliquely on the right side of chin, (iii) Incised wound 1 " X 1" x 2" on the upper part of the right side of heck. (iv) incised wound 1" x 1/2" X muscle deep on the middle of the left side of neck. (v) Abrasion 1" x 1/2" on the, upper, part of left side of the heck in the front. (vi) Neck muscles on both sides contained dark liquid blood. (Vii) Two abrasions 4" x 2" each on the middle of the left side of back. According to the doctor, injuries nos. (i) to (iv) had been caused by a sharp weapon like Khurpi and injuries nos. (v) and (vii) could have been caused by friction against hard and blunt object. Injury no. (vi) had been caused by pressure oh the neck. Death, in his opinion, was due to the injuries stated above. 4. The Police Officer, during his inspection of the place of occurrence, found blood-stains under the dead body and he scraped the blood-stained earth. About 18 yards north of this place, the investigating officer found blood on the ground in sufficient quantity, and at this very place there was the iron portion of the Khurpi. This field contained Arhar plants which were waist high. He scraped blood-stained earth and seized the Khurpi. Five yards north from that place, he found wheat plants having trampling marks in an area of four yards into four yards. The wooden handle of the Khurpi was lying there. He also found Arhar Chhemi wrapped in a piece of cloth. About 30 yards north of this place was the Arhar field. It appeared that the Chhemis had been plucked from some of those plants. The investigating officer then examined witnesses and went to the police station where he found the appellants having been brought there. He found blood-like stains on the dhoti of Habib and gamchha of Dukharan. He also found injury on the left hand of Habib. He got the injury of Habib examined on 4th March, 1967 at 8-30 A.M. by Dr. Sachint Kumar Lal (P.W. 9). This doctor found one out injury 1" x 1/2" X bone deep on the back of the left hand proximate to the base of the little finger. Appellant Bateri was also examined and on his person six contusions were found. Sachint Kumar Lal (P.W. 9). This doctor found one out injury 1" x 1/2" X bone deep on the back of the left hand proximate to the base of the little finger. Appellant Bateri was also examined and on his person six contusions were found. Abrasions on Dukharan were also noticed. 5. After completing the investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against all these appellants who were committed to the Court of Sessions, after an inquiry under Chapter XVIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to stand their trial. They were tried by the learned Sessions Judge of Darbhanga with the result indicated above. 6. The defence of the appellants was that, they had nothing to do with the offence in question; that they had not killed Jagtarni and that they had not made any extra judicial confession. According to the defence, even if it was alleged to have been made, it was hit by Sections 24 and 25 of the Evidence Act. The defence alleged that the appellants had been severely assaulted by the villagers before the Mukhiya. It was suggested on their behalf that the deceased had some ornaments on her person which might have tempted some dacoits who took away the ornaments and killed her. On behalf of the defence, one witness was also examined. This defence version, of course, was not accepted by the learned Sessions Judge, who convicted and sentenced the appellants as stated above. 7. In the Sessions Court, the prosecution had examined 14 witnesses in all, and one witness was examined on behalf of the defence. She is Mossammat Jalisan, who spoke about some dispute between appellant Dukharan and prosecution witness Jhari Lal. 8. In this case there is no eyewitness and so we have to depend on the circumstantial evidence. In dealing with circumstantial evidence there is always the danger that conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof. In such cases the circumstances from which a conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should, in the first instance, be fully established and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. There must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. 9. There must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. 9. It cannot be doubted that Jagtarni died because of injuries inflicted on her person. I have already referred to the evidence of Dr. Sadhu Saran Lal (P.W. 8) on this point. It then remains to be seen as to which persons could have inflicted these injuries on the deceased. Admittedly, there is no eyewitness who could say that he saw some injuries being inflicted on Jagtarni. We have to depend only on circumstantial evidence. In this case, I find that there are three types of circumstantial evidence which can be urged on behalf of the prosecution to establish the guilt of these appellants. The first circumstance is the statement of Jhari Lal (P.W. 2) that he had seen that evening Jagtarni altercating with these appellants. The second circumstance is that, when these three appellants were arrested, some injuries and bloodstains on their clothes were also detected. The third circumstance is that they confessed their guilt before the Mukhiya, the chaukidar and the villagers. 10. P.W. 2 Jhari Lal has stated that he was coming from Bishunpur to his house and he saw these three appellants altercating with Jagtarni in the field of Rajchandra Missir. He asked them not to quarrel and they became quiet. Next morning P.W. 1 Rajeshwar, cousin of Jagtarni, came to him while searching for Jagtarni, and then this witness related to him what he had seen in the previous evening. Both of them then went to that field as well as to the fields of Dhrubji and Bhaiyaji. He further stated that the appellants were arrested that day and brought to the High School. The Ganji on the body of appellant Dukharan bore bloodstains and there was also injury on the person of appellant Habib. Bateri also wore clothes which had stains like blood, -In support of this evidence, the prosecution examined Radha Kamti (P.W. 11) who stated that on a Thursday he and Ramphal (P.W. 12) were, cutting wood in Bishunpur and in the evening they returned from there. It had become twilight then (JHOL POL HO GAYA THA). He had seen these appellants coming from the school side and getting on the pitched road. It had become twilight then (JHOL POL HO GAYA THA). He had seen these appellants coming from the school side and getting on the pitched road. These three appellants were in an agitated mood (GHAR-BRAHAT KI HALAT MEN THE). Next morning, he heard hulla about the murder of Jagtarni. It is to be noted that this witness was examined by the Police about one month after and at that time he had not stated that he had seen the appellants in an agitated mood. So the very late examination of this witness detracts the worth of his evidence. P.W. 12 Ramphal has been simply tendered. In my opinion, the evidence of 'last seen' is not sufficient for a conviction: there should be something more than the mere evidence of 'last seen'. 11. In the case of (1) Eradu V. State of Hyderabad (A.I.R. 1956 SC 316), it was found that the accused had enticed away the deceased on the evening of the day of murder and the deceased was found hanging in the backyard of his house. The circumstances by themselves were not held to be sufficient without anything more to connect the accused with the crime. In an old case of Lahore High Court, in (2) Hayat V. Emperor (A.I.R. 1932 Lah 243), it was observed that, when two persons are seen together and shortly afterwards one of them is found to have been murdered, no onus rests on the survivor to give an explanation as to how the deceased met his death. In another case, in (3) Raghav Prapanna Tripathi V. State of Uttar Pradesh (A.I.R. 1963 SC 74), there Were many circumstances, still it was held that those circumstances were insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused, namely, the murder of his first wife and the son. In my opinion, therefore, the evidence of 'last seen' alone cannot be said to be a conclusive evidence for holding a person guilty of such a type of offence. 12. I would then come to the evidence concerning the confession alleged to have, been made by these appellants. The evidence on the record shows that all the three appellants were arrested on the next day of the alleged murder. It is in evidence of P.W. 1 Rajeshwar that he had gone to arrest appellant Bateri and Ramphal and Radhe went and brought appellants Habib and Dukharan. The evidence on the record shows that all the three appellants were arrested on the next day of the alleged murder. It is in evidence of P.W. 1 Rajeshwar that he had gone to arrest appellant Bateri and Ramphal and Radhe went and brought appellants Habib and Dukharan. Bateri was arrested at his house and the other two were also brought to the school where the Mukhiya, Markandey Bhandari (P.W. 10), also came. The chaukidar was also then present. It is said, that the Mukhiya questioned these appellants and they admitted their guilt; rather, only one of them admitted the guilt on behalf of all the three. The witnesses who have spoken about this confession also said that there was blood on the bodies of appellants Dukharan and Bateri. But it is important to note that this witness, when examined by the Police, had not said so. P.W. 1 has admitted that the Mukhiya told the appellants that, if they stated the truth, they would be let off. There can be no doubt that a Mukhiya and a Chaukidar are persons in authority. Section 24 of the Evidence Act reads as follows: 24. Confession caused by inducement, threat or promise, when irrelevant in criminal proceeding-- 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 persons, 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 a temporal nature in reference to the proceedings against him. The evidence is clear that the Mukhiya offered inducement to these appellants and promised to release them, if they accepted their guilt. This inducement might have influenced the minds of the appellants that, if they accepted the guilt, they would be released at once. In their statements under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure these appellants have said that they were severely beaten by the Mukhiya and others. Appellant Habib stated that the Mukhiya was striking him with a Gupti and the point of the Gupti had struck his hind. In their statements under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure these appellants have said that they were severely beaten by the Mukhiya and others. Appellant Habib stated that the Mukhiya was striking him with a Gupti and the point of the Gupti had struck his hind. It can, therefore, be reasonably inferred that the so-called confession was not a voluntary one, and because of the inducement or promise to release them, these appellants might have accepted their complicity in the crime. So, this part of the evidence cannot be accepted to be legally effective evidence against these appellants. 13. I would then take up the third circumstance against these appellants, that is, the injuries and blood-stains on their persons or clothes. According to the prosecution, the appellants had received injuries at the hands of Jagtarni who was holding a Khurpi in her hand at the time, and it was quite natural that she mast have used that Khurpi against these appellants, if the latter wanted to molest her. This explanation does not appear to be probable. The girl was alone whereas the assailants were three in number. While resisting, Jagtarni could have given a blow or two here and there, but she must have been overpowered at once; and if there were many injuries on the bodies of these appellants, they cannot be attributed to their struggle with Jagtarni. Dr. Sachint Kumar Lal (P.W. 9), who was then the medical officer attached to the State Dispensary at Benipatti, has stated that, on 4th March, 1967, that is, two days after the occurrences, he examined appellant Habib and found one cut injury on the back of his left hand proximal to the base of the little finger. This injury could have been caused by a sharp cutting instrument, which might be a Khurpi or a gupti. On the person of appellant Bated, he found six contusions on both sides of the back. The injuries were simple in nature and caused by hard and blunt substance like lathi. So many contusions could not have been produced by Jagtarni. They surely indicate the result of beating given to this appellant by kicks on his back. Appellant Dukharan was examined in Jail on 8th March, 1967 at 8 A.M. by Dr. Sadhu Saran Lal (P.W. 8). So many contusions could not have been produced by Jagtarni. They surely indicate the result of beating given to this appellant by kicks on his back. Appellant Dukharan was examined in Jail on 8th March, 1967 at 8 A.M. by Dr. Sadhu Saran Lal (P.W. 8). He found one abrasion 1/2" x 1/2" on the middle of the right side of back and another oblique abrasion 1/2" x 1/2" on the middle of the left side of back. The injuries appeared to have been caused within 48 hours. This time of injury as given by the medical expert would belie the prosecution story to the effect that they had been received while altercating with Jagtarni in the evening of the 2nd March, 1967. Some of the prosecution witnesses have stated that the Ganji of appellant Dukharan bore blood marks. But it is to be noted that the investigating officer had not seized the Ganji, but had seized the Gamchha of Dukharan and this Gamchha had been produced by the Mukhiya (vide seizure list Ext. 5/2). The letter of the investigating officer dated the 30th May, 1967 (Ext. 3) shows that the blood-stained Saree of the deceased was taken charge of from the hospital, the Ganji of appellant Dukharan and the dhoti of appellant Habib had been taken charge of from the Madhubani Jail gate, and the Khurpi and the blood-stained earth were seized at the spot. The cloth piece cutting, the dhoti cutting as well as the earth bore human blood marks, as the report of the serologist would show. Any way, I have explained it earlier that the presence of these blood marks might be due to injuries which these appellants had received at the instance of the Mukhiya and others when they had been arrested. The prosecution witnesses, in their earliest statements before the Police, had not mentioned the injuries or the blood marks on the persons of these appellants. 14. It may be further indicated that the motive for this murder is said to be that these appellants might have raped Jagtarni and then killed her so that she might not divulge this fact to anybody. The Saree which Jagtarni was then wearing was seized by the Police, but it did not contain any mark of semen. If three persons had raped Jagtarni successively, there ought to have been seminal stains on the Saree. The Saree which Jagtarni was then wearing was seized by the Police, but it did not contain any mark of semen. If three persons had raped Jagtarni successively, there ought to have been seminal stains on the Saree. It may further be said that all this is a matter of conjecture. From the postmortem report it further appears that, on the private parts of Jagtarni, there was no sign of rape. If Jagtarni was resisting the action of the appellants, there must have been some marks of struggle or injury on her private parts. 15. I do not think it is necessary to refer to the evidence of other unimportant witnesses who do not say anything about the actual occurrence, but have given evidence in a formal way. I may further point out that P.W. 1 stated that he searched for Jagtarni in the night of occurrence also and, when he could not trace her out, he told this fact to some of the villagers. But he admitted that none of those persons, to whom he-had stated this fact, was a witness in the case. So, the first reaction of P.W. 1, cousin of the deceased, was not made available to the court by examining those persons. 16. This is all the evidence which the prosecution has given in this case, and, when all the evidence, circumstances and the broad probabilities, of the case are taken into account and thoroughly judged, I am not prepared to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the State that the offence of these three appellants for the murder of Jagtarni has been established beyond reasonable doubt. It is rather unfortunate that the murderer of Jagtarni goes unpunished. The prosecution story might be correct but a conviction can be based only when it must be correct. I would, therefore, give these appellants benefit of the doubt and acquit them of the charges levelled against them. This para should be merge appeals are allowed, the ORDER :of conviction and sentence passed against these three appellants is set aside and they are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. They must now be set at liberty forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other cases. A.N. Mukharji, J. I agree. Appeal allowed.