JUDGMENT 1. This is a jail appeal filed by Thavra against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Pratabgarh dated December 11, 1974, by which he was convicted under section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution story runs as follows : 3. On March 3, 1974, at about 7 a.m. Thavra appellant made a report to the police at police out-post Ninora that he had killed his wife Mst. Sajni with a stone and that her dead body was lying in a nullah known as Babawali. The above information was recorded by the Incharge of the police out-post in the daily diary. On the basis of this report the Station House Officer, Salamgarh, registered a criminal case under section 302. I. P. C. and made the usual investigation into the matter. At the time of his arrest, the appellant was wearing a blood-stained shirt. So it was taken off his body and seized and sealed by the police in the presence of Khima P.W. 11. The dead body of Mst. Sajni was recovered from the nullah and sent to General Hospital, Pratabgarh, for post-mortem examination. Dr. A. S. Chauhan conducted an autopsy over the dead body of sajni on March 4, 1974 and found the following external injuries on it : 1. Irregular lacerated wound about 11/2 x 1/2" x 1" deep to bone lateral to right eye can, thus, 2. incised wound 2"x 1/2" x 1/2" in front of right ear and part of external ear is also cut ; 3. tongue is also bitten anterior and part ; 4. incised wound 11/2" x 1/2" x 1/2" on the right back just fusion of occipital bone ; 5. lacerated wound 11/2" x 1" x 1/2" left side fusion of front parietal bone ; 6. incised wound lateral to angle of upper lip right side ; 7. lacerated wound 1/2" x 1" x 3/4" below chin to left side. Upon dissection of the dead body, he further noticed several internal injuries, which are described below ; 1. scalp punctured wound 11/2" x 31/2" x 1" outside lateral side to right eye canthus ; 2. lacerated wound 2" x 1/2" x ⅓" at the parotid region in front of right ear ; 3. Upon dissection of the dead body, he further noticed several internal injuries, which are described below ; 1. scalp punctured wound 11/2" x 31/2" x 1" outside lateral side to right eye canthus ; 2. lacerated wound 2" x 1/2" x ⅓" at the parotid region in front of right ear ; 3. skull depressed fracture of anterior to right temporal and posterior to frontal right side at the junction of fronto-parietal temporal junction ; 4. In his opinion, the death of Mst. Sajni occurred on account of intra cranial haemorrhage and shock caused by head injury. The duration of the death was within 21 hours to 40 hours. The appellant was arrested soon after he made the first information report. After his arrest, he gave the Station House Officer an information, while in police custody, that he could point out the stone lying in the nullah with which he had caused injuries to his wife Mst. Sajni on her head and face. The Station House Officer recorded this information in a memo Ex. P. 14 and recovered the stone from the water channel at the instance of the appellant and in pursuance of his above information. The Station House Officer collected other necessary evidence in the case and eventually, submitted a charge-sheet under section 302. I.P.C. against Thavra appellant in the court of the Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Pratabgarh who, upon finding a prima facie case exclusively triable by the court of Session, committed the appellant to the court of the Sessions Judge, Pratabgarh for trial for the offence of murder. The Sessions Judge tried the appellant and found him guilty of the murder of his wife. Accordingly, he convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above. Hence, the appellant has preferred this jail appeal through the jail authorities. Later on, Mr. Doongar Singh, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the appellant and desired to argue the appeal on his behalf. 5. We have heard Mr. Doongar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. N. S. Acharya, Public Prosecutor, for the state. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that there is no direct evidence to prove the connection of the appellant with the murder of his wife. 5. We have heard Mr. Doongar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. N. S. Acharya, Public Prosecutor, for the state. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that there is no direct evidence to prove the connection of the appellant with the murder of his wife. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the prosecution adduced circumstantial evidence to prove the guilt of the appellant but the incriminating circumstances were neither fully established, nor were they sufficient to hold the appellant guilty of the offence of murder. Mr. N. S. Acharya, Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, urged that the important incriminating circumstances proved against the appellant are that he was last seen in the company of the deceased and that the dead body of the deceased was recovered at his instance and in consequence of his information. 6. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival contentions. At the outset we may observe that the entire prosecution case rests upon circumstantial evidence as there was no eye-witness to the actual commission of the crime of murder by the appellant. Hence, we have to ascertain whether the incriminating circumstances put forward by the prosecution have been fully established and whether they were in consistent with the innocence of the appellant and were not capable of being explained away on any reasonable hypothesis other than his guilt, because unless there is such a complete chain of circumstantial evidence against the appellant as not to leave any reasonable doubt of his guilt, no criminal liability can be saddled on him. In the instant case, the prosecution relied upon the following incriminating circumstances in proof of the appellants guilt:- 1. the appellant was last seen proceeding with his wife Mst. Sajni, deceased from the house of his uncle Thavra ai village Maure Kheda on the day of occurrence ; 2. the appellant made a first information report to the police at police outpost Ninora that he had killed his wife and that her dead body was lying in a nullah: 3. recovery of blood-stained shirt from the body of the appellant at the time of his arrest; 4. recovery of blood-stained stone at the instance of the appellant and in pursuance of his information recorded under section 27 of the Evidence Act; 5. recovery of blood-stained shirt from the body of the appellant at the time of his arrest; 4. recovery of blood-stained stone at the instance of the appellant and in pursuance of his information recorded under section 27 of the Evidence Act; 5. motive on the part of the appellant to commit the murder of his wife; 7. The prosecution has examined Thavra son of Bijiya, P. W. 5 and Sawa P.W. 8 to prove that the appellant was last seen in the company of his wife Mst. Sajni, deceased. Sawa P. W. 8 is the father of the deceased. His evidence is that his daughter Sajni was formerly married to Raoji about 8 or 10 years ago. After her marriage, she lived with Raoji for 3 or 4 years, but as Raoji used to maltreat her, she divorced him and, later on, contracted a Nata marriage with the appellant who in those days was a servant of Ram Sukh Dhakar. For some time Sajni lived at her father's village but, later on, the appellant expressed his desire to take her with him to his village. Sawa refused to send her with the appellant, as she was pregnant, but, the appellant took her away forcibly without his consent. 10 or 12 days after the departure of the appellant along with Sajni Sawa heard that his daughter Sajni had been killed. Thavra, P. W 5. also stated in his deposition at the trial that the appellant and his wife Sajni stayed at his house for about 10 days. Thereafter he left his house along with Sajni in the early morning. Then this witness heard that Sajni had been murdered by the appellant. From the evidence of these two witnesses, it is fully established that the appellant started with his wife Sajni from his uncle Thavras house on the day of occurrence in the early morning after staying there for 8 days, but this fact alone is not sufficient to hold the appellant guilty of the offence of murder in the absence of any other evidence. This fact may give rise to a grave suspicion against the appellant but suspicion, howsoever strong cannot be a valid substitute for proof. 8. This fact may give rise to a grave suspicion against the appellant but suspicion, howsoever strong cannot be a valid substitute for proof. 8. The second incriminating circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is that the first information report was lodged by the appellant with the police and in that report he confessed to have killed his wife with a stone. The first information report made by the accused is clearly inadmissible except for the purpose that the appellant was the maker thereof. The entire confessional statement made in the report falls within the mischief of section 25 of the Evidence Act so no part thereof is receivable in evidence except as provided by section 27 of the Evidence Act. Reference in this connection may by made to an authority of the Supreme Court A. Nagesia v. Bihar State, AIR 1966 B.C. P. 119 (para 18) , wherein the following observations were made by their Lordships on the use of the first information report given by the accused to a police officer:- "If the first information report is given by the accused to a police officer and amounts to a confessional statement, proof of the confession is prohibited by S 25. The confession includes not only the admission of the offence but all other admissions of incriminating facts related to the offence contained in the confessional statement is receivable in evidence except to the extent that the ban of S. 25 is lifted by S. 27." 9. Consequently, the appellant cannot be convicted on the basis of his confessional statement contained in the first information report given by him to the police officer. Of course, the first information report could be used against him, if it contained any information which led to the recovery of the dead body of the deceased but, in this case the appellant did not state in the first information report that he had dropped the dead body in the nullah. Of course, the first information report could be used against him, if it contained any information which led to the recovery of the dead body of the deceased but, in this case the appellant did not state in the first information report that he had dropped the dead body in the nullah. He merely stated that the dead body was lying in a nullah known as Babawali Khali; Unless he said in his report that he had dropped the dead body in the nullah, the mere fact that the dead body was recovered from a place open and accessible to all at the pointing of the appellant, does not conclusively fasten criminal liability upon him in the absence of any other direct or circumstantial evidence connecting him with the murder. 10. The third and the fourth circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are not at all of incriminating nature, because the shirt taken off the body of the appellant at the time of his arrest and the stone recovered at his instance and in pursuance of the information, which he furnished to the Station House Officer while in police custody, were not found positive for blood and human blood by the Chemical Examiner and the Serologist respectively. There are no reports of the Chemical Examiner and the Serologist on the record to show that the shirt and the stone were stained with human blood. The prosecution did not produce their reports for reasons best known to it. 11. Lastly, the prosecution has led evidence of motive on the part of the appellant to kill Mst. Sajni. The motive alleged was that Mst. Sajni was a woman of loose character and that she was pregnant at the time when she was proceeding with the appellant from the house of Thavra. There is no evidence on the record that Mst. Sajni was leading an adulterous life after she had contacted a Nata marriage with the appellant or that she became pregnant as a result of having sexual intercourse with some person other than the appellant. There is no evidence on the record that Mst. Sajni was leading an adulterous life after she had contacted a Nata marriage with the appellant or that she became pregnant as a result of having sexual intercourse with some person other than the appellant. The mere facts that she left her former husband on account of maltreatment meted out to her at the hands during her stay with him and that later on, she contacted a Nata marriage with the appellant, are not sufficient to prove that she was a woman of bad character and the appellant had suspicions about her chastity and on that score wanted to kill her. 12. The result of the above discussion is that upon careful review of the entire evidence, we have come to the conclusion that the prosecution could not bring guilt home to the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, we accept the appeal filed by Thavra, set aside his conviction and sentence under section 302, I. P. C. acquit him of the said charge. The appellant is in jail. He shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in connection with some other case.Appeal accepted. *******