JUDGMENT : N.K. Das, J. - The appeal is directed against the conviction of the Appellant under Sections 302 and 201, Indian Penal Code sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life for offence u/s 302, Indian Penal Code and R.I. for five years for offence u/s 201, Indian Penal Code, both the sentences to run concurrently. 2. Prosecution case is that on 13-7-1976 in the morning in village Goudasahi under Tirtol P.S. the Appellant quarreled with P.W. 4 the mother of the deceased, suspecting that the deceased who was a child of about six years had committed theft of rice from her house and threatened to take revenge. In the evening the child was untraced and subsequently her deadbody was recovered from the pond of the Appellant and there were marks of injuries on the deadbody. It is alleged that the Appellant made extra judicial confession that she had killed the deceased. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted by police. The plea of the Appellant is complete denial. 3. There is no eye-witness to the occurrence. Prosecution relies on the following circumstances: The Appellant had quarreled with the mother of the deceased in the morning on the date of the occurrence and threatened to kill the deceased. The deceased along with her sister P.W. 5 had been to her maternal uncle s house and while returning back the deceased remained behind as she was playing with other children Thereafter the deceased was missing and after search by the villagers the deadbody of the deceased was recovered from the pond of the Appellant. The Appellant was abusing the villagers when they were going to search her bari and after the deadbody was recovered the Appellant was running away, but she was caught hold of. The Appellant confessed that she had killed the deceased child. A portion of the house of the Appellant on the northern side had been plastered with cowdung. The nail scrapings of the Appellant were found stained with blood. 4. Prosecution relies on the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 4, 5 and 7 about quarrel in the morning between the Appellant on the one hand and the mother of the deceased (P.W. 4) on the other, when the Appellant threatened to kill the deceased. The nail scrapings of the Appellant were found stained with blood. 4. Prosecution relies on the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 4, 5 and 7 about quarrel in the morning between the Appellant on the one hand and the mother of the deceased (P.W. 4) on the other, when the Appellant threatened to kill the deceased. From the evidence of P.W. 4 the deceased, it transpires that when the Appellant suspected that the daughters of P.W. 4 had committed theft of paddy, both the daughters touched the garland of the deity and said that they had not committed such theft. It may be mentioned here that there is no evidence for the prosecution as to which daughter of P.W. 4 was suspected by the Appellant to have committed the theft of paddy, in as much as P.W. 4 had two daughters, namely, the deceased and P.W. 5. It may be a fact that there was a quarrel between the Appellant and P.W. 4. 5. P.W. 5 the sister of the deceased, states that she had been to her maternal uncle's place along with the deceased. On their way back, she came home but the deceased remained in the village and was playing with other children. The evidence of the P.Ws. 1, 4, 5 and 7 is to the effect that the deceased was not found in the evening and they told the villagers suspecting the Appellant to have committed some mischief. P.W. 4 has clearly stated that since the deceased was found missing they suspected that it was the Appellant and none else who has done something for the disappearance. 6. The evidence of the villagers is to the effect, that they made a customary search on certain places, but could not find out the deceased. They were already told that the Appellant was suspected to have cone something and therefore they decided to search the tank of the deceased. After that tank was searched when nothing was found, they searched the adjoining tank of the Appellant from which the deadbody of the deceased was recovered and there were injuries on the deadbody. This is also proved by the doctor. The injuries were on several parts of the body including neck and the doctor is of opinion that the death was probably due to throttling . This is also proved by the doctor. The injuries were on several parts of the body including neck and the doctor is of opinion that the death was probably due to throttling . From the evidence of all the witnesses examined on this point, it is clear that the deadbody of the deceased was discovered from the tank of the Appellant and there were several injuries on the dead body which were antemortem in nature and probably she was killed by throatling. 7. Now the question is whether the Appellant was the real culprit and she caused the death of the deceased girl. It is admitted by the prosecution witnesses that all of them had suspected the Appellant from the morning and it is stated that when they went to search the bari of the Appellant, the latter was sitting on her verandah and abused them. Naturally, when she was suspected and others got inside her house, the woman would grumble. This cannot be a ground to implicate the Appellant. 8. Prosecution evidence relating to plastering of the house of the Appellant with cow dung is only to the effect that it was suspected that there were some blood marks. Besides this there is no material to connect the Appellant with the commission of the crime. The nail scrappings were taken by police, but there is no evidence of the other witnesses in whose presence the nail scrappings were taken. The chemical examiner found some blood in the scrappings. It is the admitted case of the prosecution that after the dead-body was recovered from the tank of the Appellant, the villagers caught hold of the Appellant and while she was forcibly trying to get herself free, she fell down on a choura and sustained injuries on her head. Therefore, the Appellant has already sustained injuries and naturally there must have been blood on her nails. Therefore, existence of blood in the nail scrappings does not help the prosecution. 9. Even assuming all these facts to have been proved, there is no circumstances with proper links to implicate the accused as the only person who caused the murder of the deceased. Prosecution, therefore, relies on the extra-judicial confession said to have been made by the Appellant and on the version of the daughter of the Appellant. The daughter of the Appellant has not been examined . Prosecution, therefore, relies on the extra-judicial confession said to have been made by the Appellant and on the version of the daughter of the Appellant. The daughter of the Appellant has not been examined . Prosecution relies on the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 4, 7 and 9 a bout the extra-judicial confession. These witnesses have stated that after the deadbody was found, the Appellant was trying to run away, but she was caught hold of and she made confession. The mm total of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses examined on this point would go to show that a bout 100 people had gathered at the spot. They had surrounded the Appellant a no had caught hold of her. From the evidence of P.W. 1, it transpires that when the Appellant was questioned, she sat like an idiot and at that time police arrived. When they came to the police station, the Appellant was kept in custody of the Gramarakshi. P.W. 1 lodged the F.I.R. But this fact of extra-judicial confession has not been mentioned m the F.I.R. The evidence of P.W. 4 is not of much help in this respect. P.W. 7 has stated that the Appellant and her daughter were detained and being apprehensive, he asked others not to assault the Appellant. P.W. 8 has clearly stated that after catching hold of the Appellant they kept her in the custody of the Gramarakshi and thereafter they asked the Appellant about the occurrence. All of them including the Gramarakshi asked the Appellant to confess so that she would not be handed over to police and after such promise the Appellant confessed. P.W. 8 has stated that he cannot say the names of the persons who caught hold of the Appellant as it was night and there was a gathering of about hundred persons. At first the Appellant did not confess, but 10 to 15 minutes thereafter she confessed her guilt and by that time she was trembling out of fear. This witness did not stated before the police a bout the fact of such confession. The learned Sessions judge has discarded the evidence of P.W. 8 on the ground that he is a rustic witness and his statement that the Gramarakshi was present and had caught hold of the Appellant while the Appellant made the extra-judicial confession, in as much as other witnesses have not stated so. The learned Sessions judge has discarded the evidence of P.W. 8 on the ground that he is a rustic witness and his statement that the Gramarakshi was present and had caught hold of the Appellant while the Appellant made the extra-judicial confession, in as much as other witnesses have not stated so. We scrutinised the evidence of all the witnesses examined on this point. Only P.W. 17 has stated that by the time that tank was searched, the Gramarakshi had not come. but from the evidence of P.W. 1 read with P.W. 8 it is clear that the Gramarakshi was present, the villagers had surrounded the Appellant and they all threatened the Appellant. By that time the Appellant had sustained injuries. The Appellant was also assured that she would not be handed over to police if she confessed her guilt and under these circumstances the extra-judicial confession was made. In view of such evidence and circumstances, no reliance can be placed on the extra-judicial confession said to have been made by the Appellant. 10. As the evidence as to extra-judicial confession fails, the other evidence does not make a chain of events so as to implicate the Appellant and gives no scope for any other hypothesis. Therefore we hold that the prosecution has not been able to establish the circumstances or chain of circumstances to come to the irresistible conclusion that the Appellant was the person who can be said to have committed the murder of the deceased. 11. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the Appellant are set aside and she is acquitted of the charges levelled against her. The Appellant be set at liberty forthwith. Final Result : Allowed