Short Note : 1. Appellant Khitta had been convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life for the murder of his son Gyani and daughter-in-law Ratiya. Held : The conviction of the appellant rests upon circumstantial evidence. The main evidence on which the trial Court has relied is the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant to Nathoo (PW4). According to the evidence of Nathoo, the appellant was coming in custody of a Police Constable and a Choukidar. When the appellant saw Nathoo, he took him aside from the Police Constable. The appellant then told Nathoo that he had killed his son and daughter-in-law. In cross-examination Nathoo stated that in his case diary statement he did not state that the appellant had taken him aside away from the Police Constable when he made the extra-judicial confession. A confession made in the custody of a Police Officer is inadmissible under section 24 of the Evidence Act. The story that the appellant took the witness Nathoo aside and then made to him the confession is obviously introduced to suggest that at the time when the confession was made, the appellant was not in Police custody. However, as earlier stated, this fact is not mentioned in the case diary. Even otherwise, this fact appears to be artificial and seems to, have been introduced to get over the bar imposed by section 24 of the Evidence Act. The alleged confession made by the appellant to Nathoo cannot, therefore, be relied upon against the appellant. Appeal allowed.