Nesargi, J.-In this appeal, the appellant who has been convicted for offences tinder sections 302 and 201 Indian Penal Code, by the Sessions Judge, Hassan in Sessions Case No. 7 of 1969, Challenges the correctness and legality of the conviction and sentence passed on him. He has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under section 302, Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 and in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under section 201, Indian Penal Code. The substantive sentences are directed to run concurrently. 2. The few facts put forward by the prosecution are that the appellant Devagowda had married one Ramamma, sister of Ningegowda, P.W.1. The relationship between Ramamma and the appellant were not cordial. The appellant suspected illicit intimacy between his wife Ramamma and Sannappagowda, P.W.3. Ramamma used to leave the appellant and go to places of different relatives without taking the permission of the appellant. It is alleged by the prosecution that the appellant was not treating Ramamma properly and was not even providing food and raiment adequately. Ramamma had complained of all these acts of the appellant to the members of the village panchayat on certain occasions. It is the case of the prosecution that P.W.1 and his brother Thammegowda came across certain facts and circumstances which aroused their suspicion about the where abouts of Ramamma. They questioned the appellant and the appellant did not give them any satisfactory answers as to where Ramamma had gone and kept silent. They ultimately called the appellant on one occasion and asked him to produce Ramamma and arranged along with others to make the appellant produce Ramamma within three days. He was not able to produce Ramamma. Then P.W.1 and his brother Thammegowda took the appellant towards Coddu Village. They were all along asking the appellant as to where Ramamma was and what he had done with her. It is further the case of the prosecution that when they were on 28th October, 1968, proceeding from Kongally to Coddu Village and were passing by Kallahalli Village, where the younger brother of the appellant was residing, the appellant went saying that he would go to his brother’s house and come back. After sometime the appellant came back along with his brother and joined P.W.1 and his brother. After sometime the appellant came back along with his brother and joined P.W.1 and his brother. Then the party proceeded further and on the way the appellant told P.W.1 and his brother that he had given a blow with a club on Ramamma and she fell down and he dragged her body upto a tree (Sadlemara) and there chopped off her head and took the body to Syed Beary’s Cardamom garden and burried it in a pit dug by him by means of a ‘Matchu’. P.W.1 and his brother asked the appellant why the appellant had done so and he stated that Ramamma used to go to Thambalageri village without his consent and against his wishes and hence he followed her and assaulted her with a club. After the appellant made this confessional statement to P.W.1 and his brother, the party proceeded to Kongally Village where P.W.1 informed one Ramegowda, P.W.5 a member of the village panchayat. Then the party proceeded to the police Patil Ramegowda, P.W.4 where P.W.1 and his brother informed the facts to P.W.4. It is also the case of the prosecution that P.W.4 Ramegowda in his turn questioned the appellant and the appellant narrated the very same facts and then the appellant produced the jewels M.Os.3 to 7 and a chopper M.O.9. Thereafter, P.W.4 wrote his report, Exhibit P-5. He also mentioned therein that the appellant had produced the above mentioned articles. P.W.4 sent Exhibit P-5 through Kulavadi to the police station. That was received by the Sub-Inspector, Muni Nanjappa, P.W.17 at 2-30 p.m. on 28th October, 1968. It may be stated that it is on that day the appellant made the confessional statement and produced the above-mentioned articles. P.W.17 went to the spot. By that time, the appellant, according to the prosecution, had already informed and shown to P.W.1 and his brother, P.Ws.4 and 5 and others the place where he had buried the dead body, and so they had posted persons to watch that place. Thereafter, T. Sundara Raju, Circle Inspector of Police P.W.18 received the report in the morning of 31st October, 1968 and then he proceeded to the village where according to P.W.18, P.W.4 produced the articles M.Os.3 to 7 and 9 and the statement of the accused Exhibit P-1 recorded by him on 28th October, 1968. After completing the investigation, P.W.18, submitted the charge-sheet. 3. After completing the investigation, P.W.18, submitted the charge-sheet. 3. In regard to proof of the murder of Ramamma, the prosecution has placed reliance on the finding of a skeleton of a female at a place called Syed Beary’s Cardamom garden and pointed out by the appellant. Over that skeleton were found a red saree M.O.1 and a blouse M.O.2. The professor of Forensic Medicine has opined that the skeleton was of a female and that the age of that female might have been 18 to 22 years and that he could not state whether death was due to any unnatural cause. He found a cut at fourth cervical vertebra. He was not able to state whether it was antemortem or not. P.W.1 and his brother, of course, have identified M.Os.1 and 2 as belonging to their sister. It is on the basis of these facts that the learned Sessions Judge has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has satisfactorily established that the skeleton that was found must be that of Ramamma, wife of the appellant. We are not satisfied that such a conclusion flows from these facts. P.W.1 and his brother cannot be regarded as witnesses competent to identify the saree and the blouse that are alleged to have been found on the skeleton on that day. There is no evidence produced by the prosecution as to when Ramamma was last seen and whether Ramamma at that time was wearing M.Os.1 and 2. It is available in the evidence of P.W.1 that Ramamma was aged about 30 to 35 years. The age of Ramamma does not tally with the age of the person on whom the Professor of Forensic Medicine conducted the examination. Under these circumstances, it has to be held that the prosecution has not satisfactorily established that the skeleton found burried in Syed Beary’s Cardamom garden must be that of Ramamma, wife of the appellant. 4. In proof of the fact that this appellant is the person who murdered Ramamma, the prosecution has placed reliance on the alleged extra-judicial confession made by the appellant to P.W.1 and his younger brother, the confession made by the appellant to P.W.4, the police patel in the presence of P.W.6, Thammegowda, and production of M.Os.3 to 7 and 9 by the appellant. The prosecution has also placed reliance on the facts that mammalian blood was traced on the ear ring and the nose ring M.Os.4 and 5 respectively. Lastly, reliance is also placed on the discovery of the skeleton at the instance of the appellant. 5. We are constrained to observe at the outset that the learned Sessions Judge has shown blissful ignorance of the provisions of sections 24 and 25 of the Indian Evidence Act while dealing with the extra-judicial confession alleged to have been made by the appellant before P.W.1, i.e., on the way to Kongally. The learned Sessions Judge has, after taking note of the fact that in his statement before police P.W.1 had stated as per Exhibit D. 1 and Exhibit D. 2 that he and his brother compelled the accused to give the information about Ramamma. and that they, infact, promised the appellant that they will not take any action and thereafter secured the confession from the appellant, observed as follows: “Both Exhibits D. 1 and D. 2 have a bearing not on the confession made in P.W.6’s house, but the confession made near Kallahally.” “Assuming for the sake of argument that he forced the accused orally and gave him promise, I do not think that the confession said to have been made by the accused is in any way vitiated, because an extra judicial confession cannot be placed on the same footing, as the confession of an accused person under section 164, Criminal Procedure Code, before a Magistrate. It is such confession which would be vitiated if it is got made by any inducement or threat, or promise, etc. Here the confession has been made by the accused to his own brothers-in-law who might have compelled him orally and promised to him that they would not take any action against him, if he were to make a confession.” It is a well established principle that a confession can be acted upon by Courts only if it is a genuine one and the Court is satisfied that it is voluntary and that it does not appear to have been brought out by inducement, threat or promise as contemplated by section 24 of the Evidence Act. The Supreme Court has, in a recent decision in Thimma v. State of Mysore1, ruled accordingly. The Supreme Court has, in a recent decision in Thimma v. State of Mysore1, ruled accordingly. It is observed therein as follows: “An unambiguous confession, if admissible in evidence and free from suspicion of falsity is a valuable piece of evidence possessing a high probative force. But in the process of proof of a confession the Court must be satisfied that it is voluntary, that it does not appear to be the result of inducement, threat or promise as contemplated by the section and the surrounding circumstances do not indicate that it is inspired by some improper or collateral consideration suggesting that it may not be true. For this purpose the Court must scrutinise all the relevant factors, such as, the person to whom the confession was made, the time and place of making it, the circumstances in which it was made and finally the actual words.” 6. Exhibits D. 1 and D.2 are the portions of the statement of P.W.1 made before Police during investigation. These read to show that he has stated then in-though he has denied while in the Sessions Court -that he and his brother Thammegowda forced the accused to tell them the truth as to where their sister Ramamma was and that both of them gave the accused promise that they would not take any action. It is therefore, clear that not only did they compel the appellant to make confessional statement, but also promised immunity to him from further action. In the result, we are clearly of the opinion that the confession alleged to have been made by the appellant to P.W.1 and bis brother Thimmegowda cannot be acted upon against the appellant. The appellant had, at the earliest opportunity, retracted from this confession. 7. The circumstances surrounding this confession are depicted in the evidence of P.Ws.1, 4, 5 and 6. As already pointed out, it is the case of the prosecution that P.W.1 and his brother took the appellant and his brother to the village called Kongally, where they informed P.W.5 about the confessional statement made by the appellant and the party contacted the Police Patel P.W.4, where the police patil was also informed and who in his turn questioned the appellant. The appellant, it is said, produced M.Os.3 to 7 and a chopper M.O.9. All this transpired on 28th October, 1968. The appellant, it is said, produced M.Os.3 to 7 and a chopper M.O.9. All this transpired on 28th October, 1968. It is manifest that the confession alleged to have been made by the appellant to the police patil P.W.4 is nothing but a repetition of what the appellant had, as alleged, stated to P.W.1. It is to our mind clear in these circumstances that no importance can be attached to this confession alleged to have been made by the appellant, because it has already been seen that the confession statement alleged to have been made by the appellant, a little earlier, to P.W.1 and his brother was due to the compulsion exercised by P.W.1 and his brother and promise of immunity given by P.W.1 and his brother to the appellant. Moreover, the confession is made to a Village Police Patel. Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act clearly lays down that a confession made to a Police Officer cannot be proved against a person accused of any offence. A Police Officer is defined as follows in section 2(16) of the Mysore Police Act. 1963: “(16)”Police Officer“means any member of the police force appointed or deemed to be appointed under this Act and includes a special or an additional Police Officer appointed under this Act and includes..........” Section 129 of the very Act lays down “that the village police shall consist of a police patel and such village police officers of such grades as may be prescribed”. It is hence seen that a police patel is a member of the village police force. Section 130 of the said Act lays down-that “130. The administration of the village police in each district shall, under the general control and direction of the Government be exercised by the District Magistrate”. Further on section 132 of the said Act provides that in each village police shall be appointed by the District Magistrate subject to such rules which may be made by the Government in that behalf, and further that the District Magistrate shall appoint in writing a person as the Police Patel. 8. The above provisions make it abundantly clear that a village police patel is a member of the police force and that he is appointed by the District Magistrate under the provisions of the Mysore Police Act. 8. The above provisions make it abundantly clear that a village police patel is a member of the police force and that he is appointed by the District Magistrate under the provisions of the Mysore Police Act. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that a police patel is a police officer within the definition of the said terms found in the Mysore Police Act, 1963. Section 133 of the same Act lays down the duties of Police Patel as follows: “133 Duties of Police Patel-The Police Patel shall, subject to the orders of the District Magistrate,- (i) act under the orders of the authorised officer and within whose jurisdiction the village is situated; (ii) furnish such authorised officer with any returns or information called for and keep him informed as to the state of crime and all matters connected with the Village Police; (iii) afford all police officers every assistance in his power when called upon by them for assistance in the performance of their duties; (iv) obey and execute all orders issued to him by a Magistrate or a Police Officer; (v) collect and communicate to the Police Officer information affecting the public peace; (vi) detect and bring offenders in the village to justice; (vii) arrest persons whom he has reason to believe to have committed cognizable offences; and (viii) prevent within the limits of his village, as far as possible, the commission of offences and public nuisances.” The above mentioned duties of a Police patel are no doubt, the powers exercisable by a police officer. In view of these reasons, we hold that a Police Patel especially after coming into force of the Mysore Police Act, 1963, is a police officer and as such a confession made to him is hit by section 25 of the Evidence Act. 9. Apart from the legal disabilities pointed out above, it is further seen that Exhibit P-5, the report sent by P.W.4, the Police Patel and received by P.W.17 at 2.30 p.m. on 28th October, 1968, bears the endorsement of P.W.17 that it was produced by P.W.4 in person at that time. Now the say of P.W.4 is that he did not go personally but had sent a Kulvadi. P.W.17 has also made an attempt to support this say of P.W.4. Now the say of P.W.4 is that he did not go personally but had sent a Kulvadi. P.W.17 has also made an attempt to support this say of P.W.4. but it is seen that the endorsement of P.W.17 on the report Exhibit P-5 when it was received by him, is contrary to the oral testimony of P.W.4 and P.W.17. We are of the opinion that what is mentioned in the endorsement must be the truth. P.W.4 must be the person who had taken Exhibit P-5 to P.W.17. In that case, it would be natura1 to expect production of Exhibit P-1, M.Os.3 to 7 and M.O.9 which were already in possession of P.W.4. P.W.4 has not at all produced Exhibit P-1 and the articles before P.W.17 even after his visit on the very day. They were produced by P.W.4 for the first time before T. Sundara Raju, Circle Inspector of Police, P.W.18 on 30th October, 1968. There is no reasonable explanation provided by P.W.4 for this enormous delay. The only inference possible in these circumstances is that P.W.4 could not have been in possession of Exhibit P-1 and these articles prior to 31st October, 1968. What is now put forward before us is only a make believe affair. In view of these suspicious surrounding circumstances also, no evidentiary value can be attached to any of the confessions alleged to have been made by the appellant. 10. The only remaining circumstance is finding of mammalian blood on M.Os.4 and 5, nose ring and ear ring. In the first instance, there is no evidence worth the name produced by the prosecution to establish that these articles were on the person of Ramamma when she was last seen. In fact, there is no evidence to show as to when she was last seen by anybody and therefore, we have no material to hold that M.Os.4 and 5 were on the person of Ramamma, even if it is assumed that she was murdered. The presence of mammalian blood on M.Os.4 and 5 cannot take the prosecution an inch further because the Chemical Examiner has stated in his report that the stains were not sufficient for submission to serological test and he did not forward M.Os.4 and 5 to the Serologist. The prosecution has not, therefore, established that the mammalian blood found on M.Os.4 and 5 was of human origin. The prosecution has not, therefore, established that the mammalian blood found on M.Os.4 and 5 was of human origin. Under these circumstances, the finding of mammalian blood on M.Os.4 and 5 cannot be taken as an incriminating circumstance appearing in evidence against the appellant. Moreover, as already pointed out, the prosecution has not satisfactorily established that it was the appellant who had produced these articles before the Police Patel. 11. In view of the foregoing reasons, we find it impossible to agree with the conclusions arrived at by the learned Session Judge. We therefore allow this appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence passed on the appellant. The appellant is acquitted and directed to be released and set at liberty forthwith. S.V.S. ----- Appeal allowed Conviction and sentence set aside Appellant acquitted.