Short Note : 1. In this appeal, the appellant Tilak had challenged his convictions under sections 302 & 392 of the IPC for which he was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and seven years rigorous imprisonment respectively, sentences to run concurrently. Held : This Court having heard the learned counsel for the parties is of the view that the convictions of the appellant under sections 302 and 392 of the IPC and sentences thereunder could not be sustained. The prosecution examined Hanslal (P.W.6) as an eye-witness. He stated that he had seen the appellant sitting over the abdomen of the deceased and assaulting him with a sickle. He informed about this to two boys of Sehora that a Lodhi by of Nagpura had cut a man with sickle. These boys have not been examined. Para 20 of his evidence shows that he was detained by the police for three days and thereafter he had disclosed of what he had seen. He further admitted that the police had slapped him and was charging him for having murdered Ramu. Then he stated that every body was naming the appellant and, therefore, he named Tilak as the person who had assaulted Ramu. Then the police asked him to point out the culprit out of 4 or 5 persons detained in the room. All these facts show that he is an untruthful witness and his evidence is liable to be omitted for consideration. 2. The main evidence against the appellant is the retracted judicial confession Shri Tiwari (P.W.16) recorded the judicial confession Ex. P-31. The appellant was produced before him at 3 p.m. on 18-9-1971 and he gave him time for reflection. He was produced at 12-30 p.m. on 20-9-1971. A perusal of the confession Ex. P-31 shows that the Magistrate framed questions and then elicited answers from the appellant. This he had done after perusing the case diary and other police papers. It could not, therefore, be said that the entire initiative was of the appellant himself to state whatever he wanted to depose. In view of these facts, this Court holds that the confessional statement Ex. P-31 inadmissible in evidence. Bhukin v. King Emperor, ILR 1948 Nag. 147, Rajkunwarbai v. State, Cr. A. No. 314 of 1973 decided on 29-3-1974, State v. Tulsiram and others, Cr. A. No. 178 of 1968 decided on 10-2-1971 and Chhite and another v. State, Cr. In view of these facts, this Court holds that the confessional statement Ex. P-31 inadmissible in evidence. Bhukin v. King Emperor, ILR 1948 Nag. 147, Rajkunwarbai v. State, Cr. A. No. 314 of 1973 decided on 29-3-1974, State v. Tulsiram and others, Cr. A. No. 178 of 1968 decided on 10-2-1971 and Chhite and another v. State, Cr. A. No. 840 of 1967 decided on 10-2-1971, relied on. 3. As regards the articles recovered from the appellant, they have not been found to be stained with human blood and therefore, the seizure of the articles could not be used as an incriminating circumstance against the appellant. Appeal allowed.