JUDGMENT V. P. Gupta, J. — This judgment shall dispose of appeals Nos. 98 of 1982 and 6 of 1983. 2. Piar Chand, Sansar Chand and joginder Singh (hereinafter called the accused) were charged and tried by the Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for having committed the murder of Shamsher Singh by a gun fire on the intervening night of 14/15th March, 1982. The Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, vide his judgment, dated 29th November, 1982 convicted Piar Chand, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment. Sansar Chand and Joginder Singh accused were, however, acquitted of the charges. 3. Aggrieved from this judgment of conviction, Piar Chand (accused) has filed Criminal Appeal No. 98 of 1982. The State has also filed Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 1983 challenging the acquittal of Sansar Chand and joginder Singh (accused). 4. The admitted facts are that Piar Chand and Sansar Chand (accused) are sons of Mast Ram. They are residents of Village Tareti. joginder Singh (accused) is a resident of Village Jalari. 5. Shamsher Singh (deceased) was a medical practitioner and was practising at Village Barra. He was married to Smt. Shanti Devi (PW 7) of Village Choru, Jagdip Singh (PW 4) is the father of Smt. Shanti Devi and Prem Singh (PW 3) is brother of Jagdip Singh. Smt. Santi Devi is employed as a school teacher in village Naura, District Jalandhar, She was married to the deceased about two years prior to occurrence. Smt. Santi Devi did not give birth to any child from the marital union. Smt. Krishna Devi (PW 11) is the mother of Smt, Santi Devi. Smt. Bimla Devi (PW10) is the daughter-in-law of Smt. Krishna Devi. Bahadur Singh (PW 1) is the Pradhan of Village Choru. Jagdip Singh (PW 4) is a resident of Village Choru which is at a distance of about 3£ K. M. from Village Barra. 6. According to the prosecution story, on 9th March, 1982 the deceased along with his wife Smt. Santi Devi (PW 7) came from Village Naura to village Choru to attend a marriage. The deceased was living with Smt. Shanti Devi at Village Naura. He was retaining his clinic at village Barra and was keen to shift to village Naura where his wife was employed. The deceased was living with Smt. Shanti Devi at Village Naura. He was retaining his clinic at village Barra and was keen to shift to village Naura where his wife was employed. The deceased was receiving threats to his life from the accused. The prosecution version is that the mother of Piar Chand and Sansar Chand (accused) was given a wrong injection by the deceased in the year 1979 as a result of which she died, 7. Smt. Shanti Devi attended the marriage on 11th March, 1982 but the deceased did not attend the marriage After attending the marriage, she was to return to village Naura on 14th March, 1982. The deceased was, however, to stay at village Barra and was to leave for Naura within three or four days. On 14th March, 1982 during the morning hours, Smt. Shanti Devi was at the bus stand and was to board the bus for village Naura, She noticed ail the three accused at the bus stand. Piar Chand (accused) asked her about the where about of the deceased. She informed him that the deceased was staying back at Barra and would be joining her at village Naura after three or four days. 8. On 15th March, 1982 it was found that Shamsher Singh was lying dead in his clinic at Barra. The dead body was seen by Mast Ram (PW 8) at about 930 AM on 15th March, 1982. Mast Ram was informed about the death of Shamsher Singh by Basant Singh (whose shop is near the clinic). Mast Ram (PW 8) sent a message to Jagdip Singh (PW 4) through Ishar Das (Mail-runner) about the death of Shamsher Singh, 9. One Partapu informed Kishan Chand (PW 17) at about 11.15 A. M. that Shamsher Singh was lying cold in his clinic. Kishan Chand (PW 17) is an Ayurvedic Doctor at Barra. He examined Shamsher Singh and found that Shamsher Singh was lying dead on the cot due to chest injuries. 10. Jagdip Singh (PW 4) was informed by Ishar Das (Mail-runner) about the murder of Shamsher Singh. On receipt of the message, Jagdip Singh along with Bahadur Singh (PW 1), Prem Singh (PW 3), Smt. Krishna Devi (PW 11) and Smt. Bimla Devi (PW 10) went to the clinic and found the dead body of Shamsher Singh. 10. Jagdip Singh (PW 4) was informed by Ishar Das (Mail-runner) about the murder of Shamsher Singh. On receipt of the message, Jagdip Singh along with Bahadur Singh (PW 1), Prem Singh (PW 3), Smt. Krishna Devi (PW 11) and Smt. Bimla Devi (PW 10) went to the clinic and found the dead body of Shamsher Singh. Smt. Shanti Devi (PW 7) was called from village Naura and she reached Barra on 15th March, 1982. On the way, she met Mast Ram (father of Piar Chand and Sansar Chand accused). She gave a lift to him in her taxi but Mast Ram did not show any sympathy towards her in spite of the fact that she was weeping. 11. Bahadur Singh (PW 1) submitted an application (Exhibit PA) in Police Station, Nadaun, at 10.30 PM on 15th March, 1982. A report (copy of which is Exhibit PU) was entered in the daily diary. In Exhibit PA, Bahadur Singh (PW 1) has described Smt. Shanti Devi as his niece and has stated that he was informed by Jagdip Singh (PW 4) about the death of Shamsher Singh. 12. On receipt of the application investigations started. An inquest report (Exhibit PN) was prepared and post-mortem examination of the deceased was conducted on 17th March, 1982 at 9.15 A.M. A case under Section 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code was registered on 18th March, 1982 vide FIR Exhibit PB. In the FIR (Exhibit PB) and the application (Exhibit PA) the names of the accused persons or any other person (s) suspected of having committed the offence are not mentioned. After investigations, Piar Chand and Sansar Chand (accused) were arrested on 20th March, 1982, while joginder Singh (accused) was arrested on 3rd April, 1982, 13. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records minutely, 14. There is no direct evidence and the prosecution case rests upon the circumstantial evidence only. In the case of circumstantial evidence the cumulative effect of the circumstances must be such as to negative the innocence of the accused and bring the offence home to him beyond any reasonable doubt. In fact, the evidence should connect the accused with the crime and it should point to the conclusion that it was the accused and accused only who was the culprit and the evidence adduced was incompatible with his innocence. In fact, the evidence should connect the accused with the crime and it should point to the conclusion that it was the accused and accused only who was the culprit and the evidence adduced was incompatible with his innocence. The Sessions Judge has taken into consideration the following circumstances against Piar Chand (accused) and the learned Assistant Advocate-General also relied upon this circumstantial evidence, (i) Extra-judicial confession of Sansar Chand (accused) to Bahadur Singh (PW 1); (ii) Extra judicial confession by Piar Chand (accused) to Prem Singh (PW 3) and Jagdip Singh (PW 4) ; (iii) All the accused were seen together by Braham Datt (PW 6) at about 8 or 9 PM on 14th March, 1982 at a distance of about 1 ½ K. M. from the village of the accused, when Piar Chand (accused) was armed with a gun ; (iv) Inquiry by Piar Chand (accused) about the whereabouts of Shamsher Singh from Smt Shanti Devi at Bus Stand on the morning of 14th March, 1982, and similar inquiry during the night hours of 14th March, 1982 from Jagdip Singh ; (v) Motive, i. e. old enmity of Piar Chand and Sansar Chand (accused) with the deceased who had given an injection to their mother in the year 1979 ; and (vi) Seizure of the gun and recovery of cartridges. 15. The learned counsel appearing for the accused contended that there was no evidence at all to connect the accused with the offence. He also con tended that extra-judicial confessions were never made by the accused. 16. The learned Assistant Advocate-General relied mainly upon the extra- judicial confessions of Sansar Chand made to Bahadur Singh (PW 1) and Piar Chand made to Prem Singh (PW 3) and Jagdip Singh (PW 4). He also relied upon other circumstantial evidence narrated above. 17. Now we will first deal with the extra-judicial confessions of Sansar Chand and Piar Chand. The confession made by Sansar Chand before Bahadur Singh (PW 1) and relied by prosecution is as follows : "On 19-3-1982 at about 9 or 9.30 A.M. I was coming from village Choru to Barra in connection with police enquiry of this application, when I was near the village Maloti, accused Sansar Chand met me and told me that some mistake had been committed and I should help. He further told me that Shamsher Singh deceased had given an injection to his mother about 1 ½ years ago and we have taken revenge. From this injection mother of Sansar Chand and Piar Chand became seriously ill and she was taken to P, G. I. and she died at P. G. I. Chandigarh. Again stated she died at Jullundur hospital. He further told me that he along with joginder and Piar Singh had killed Shamsher Singh with a rifle in village Barra in his clinic in the mid night of 14/15-3-1982. Sansar Chand further told me that Piar Chand accidentally left his gun in the clinic of the deceased. That gun was then brought from the clinic of the deceased by Piar Chand in the morning of 15-3-1982. C. Q. Sansar Chand told me that Piar Chand had fired at Shamsher Singh." 18. In the case of a confession it has to be read as a whole and no part of it has to be omitted. In Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab [AIR 1952 SC 354], it was held that the well accepted rule regarding use of confession and admission is that this must be either accepted as a whole or rejected as a whole and that the court is not competent to accept only the inculpatory part while rejecting the ex-culpatory part as inherently incredible. 19. The alleged confession of Sansar Chand (accused) to Bahadur Singh (PW 1) is not helpful to the prosecution. Sansar Chand has not involved himself in the offence at all. He has only stated that Piar Chand (accused) fired at Shamsher Singh. He also stated that some mistake had been committed and he should be helped by the witness, i. e. Bahadur Singh Such a confession is an exculpatory one and it cannot be treated to be a confession. More-ever, the alleged confession is not corroborated. Rather the statement is proved to be false because in his confession Sansar Chand stated that the mother of Sansar Chand and Piar Chand died at P. G. I. Chandigarh and then stated that she died in Jalandhar Hospital, According to Jagdip Singh (PW 4) the mother of Sansar Chand and Piar Chand died at Ludhiana hospital. 20. Bahadur Singh (PW 1) is a collateral of Jagdip Singh (PW 4), as the grand-father of PW 1 and the grand-father of PW 4 were real brother. 20. Bahadur Singh (PW 1) is a collateral of Jagdip Singh (PW 4), as the grand-father of PW 1 and the grand-father of PW 4 were real brother. Further, Smt. Sheela (wife of Piar Chand-accused) had filed an application against Piar Chand (accused) in the Court of Executive Magistrate, Hamirpur under Sections 107/151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Bahadur Singh (PW 1) appeared as a witness for Smt. Sheela against Piar Chand (accused) in a case under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thus, the oral statement of PW 1 regarding confession of Sansar Chand cannot be relied upon so lightly. This can also not be relied upon because the witness was associated by the police during investigations but he never stated about this confession during investigations. During trial as PW 1, he stated, that the did not state before the police about the confessional statement of Sansar Chand, Again stated that he made a statement to the police that Sansar Chand (accused) told him that a sin had been committed by them and that he (witness) should help him. This part of the statement of PW1 was not recorded in his statement during investigations (copy-of which is Exhibit DA). The witness tried to explain that the police might not have written this statement accidentally. In fact, the whole of the confessional statement, re-produced above, and as stated by the witness during the trial was put to the witness in cross-examination but no part of this statement is recorded in his earlier statement (copy of which is Exhibit DA). It cannot be believed that the police during investigations failed to record the confessional statement or the extra-judicial confession of Sansar Chand (accused), if the same had been stated by the witness to the police. An extra-judicial confession of an accused is a very valuable piece of evidence and the police cannot ignore to record the same if it was stated by a person who was highly interested in the case because it is on the application of this witness (PW 1) that the investigations of murder started. 21. In these circumstances this extra-judicial confession made by Sansar Chand to Bahadur Singh (PW 1) cannot be believed and cannot be used against Piar Chand (accused). 22. The next extra-judicial confession relied upon by prosecution is of Piar Chand (accused). 21. In these circumstances this extra-judicial confession made by Sansar Chand to Bahadur Singh (PW 1) cannot be believed and cannot be used against Piar Chand (accused). 22. The next extra-judicial confession relied upon by prosecution is of Piar Chand (accused). Piar Chand (accused) is stated to have made an extra judicial confession to Prem Singh (PW 3) and Jagdip Singh (PW 4). 23. Prem Singh (PW 3) has been declared hostile. He is the brother of Jagdip Singh (PW 4). He states—"On 19-3-82 I was ready to go to attend the investigation. Mast Ram, Sansar Chand, Piar Chand came to my house. Mast Ram is father of Piar Chand and Sansar Chand accused. Piar Chand then tole me that whatever had happened, he should be excused. Nothing else was said". On cross-examination by P. P. this witness states—" "When Sansar Chand came to me, he did not confess before me that he along with co-accused had murdered Shamsher Singh with gun". Hence this witness has nowhere stated that Piar Chand made any confessional statement to him Thus there is no extra judicial confession by Piar Chand to him (Prem Sing PW 3). 24. The next witness is Jagdip Singh (PW 4). He is the father-in-law of the deceased. His statement regarding extra judicial confession is in the following words : "On 19-3-1982 at about 10.30 or 11 A.M. Piar Chand accused met me at Maloti. I found him in a frightened state. Piar Chand asked me where I was going. I told him that I was going to Barra regarding the investigation of the murder of my son-in-law. Piar Chand told me that he has committed mistake accidentally and he should be excused. He farther told me that he had inadvertently fired at Shamsher Singh in his clinic and he should be excused. He further told me that at that time Sansar Chand and Joginder were also there. Piar Chand further told me for compromise and even offered money, I did not accept this request". 25. This statement of PW 4 does not at all suggest that any confession was made by Piar Chand of the offence. The statement, on the other hand, proves that Piar Chand committed mistake accidentally and had inadvertently fired at Shamsher Singh. Piar Chand further told me for compromise and even offered money, I did not accept this request". 25. This statement of PW 4 does not at all suggest that any confession was made by Piar Chand of the offence. The statement, on the other hand, proves that Piar Chand committed mistake accidentally and had inadvertently fired at Shamsher Singh. Now if the firing is accidental or through inadvertence, then it cannot be said that Piar Chand confessed of having committed a murder. The statement of Piar Chand, read as a whole, proves that no offence was committed by him. Piar Chand never stated that he intentionally fired at the deceased. Further, this statement of the witness does not appear to be true. It is an improvement upon his statement made during investigations. In his statement during the investigations, he never disclosed this fact of extra judicial confession of Piar Chand. This is a grave omission and cannot be ignored lightly. I cannot be accepted that if the witness had disclosed the fact about the confessional statement to the police then the police would omit to record such a statement during the investigations. Thus, firstly there is, in fact, no confession by Piar Chand before Prem Singh (PW 3) or Jagdip Singh (PW 4) and, secondly, the statements (even if they are taken to be correct) do not prove that any offence was committed by Piar Chand. Hence the alleged extra judicial confessions are not proved 26. The circumstance that Braham Datt (PW 6) saw all the accused together at about 8 or 9 PM on 14th March, 1982 and that Piar Chand was armed with a rifle cannot be considered to be a circumstance to connect the accused with the offence. This witness has stated that he did not know about the state of mind of the accused. Even if it is believed that he saw the three accused together at about 8 or 9 PM on 14th March, 1982 and that Piar Chand was armed with a rifle still this circumstance is not sufficient to connect the accused with the offence. 27. Even if it is believed that he saw the three accused together at about 8 or 9 PM on 14th March, 1982 and that Piar Chand was armed with a rifle still this circumstance is not sufficient to connect the accused with the offence. 27. The other circumstances that Piar Chand asked about the where abouts of deceased from Smt. Shanti Devi (PW 7) at the bus stand during the morning hours of 14th March, 1982 and that Sansar Chand (accused asked about the whereabouts of the deceased from Jagdip Singh (PW4) at about 10 PM or 10-30 PM on 14th March, 1982 at the house of Jagdip Singh also do not connect the accused with the crime. Smt Shanti Devi (PW 7) states that Piar Chand talked to her for the first time in her life. It cannot be expected that if Smt. Shanti Devi and Piar Chand were strangers to one another to that extent, then Piar Chand could have the courage to make an enquiry from Smt. Shanti Devi and that too at a bus stand. This statement of Smt. Shanti Devi (PW 7) does not appear to be true. In any case this circumstance cannot connect the accused with the offence. The statements of Jagdip Singh (PW 4) and Smt, Bimla Rani (PW 10) are also not worthy of reliance regarding the enquiry during the night hours. According to Jagdip Singh (PW 4) he could only identify Sansar Chand but could not identify Piar Chand and Joginder Singh. Similar is the statement of Smt. Bimla Rani (PW 10). Both these witnesses are close relations of Smt. Shanti Devi (PW 7) and deceased and it is difficult to believe that the accused will make enquiries from these persons about the where abouts of the deceased repeatedly, i. e. during early morning hours as well as late night hours in a small village. This circumstance even if believed does not connect the accused with the offence. The statement of Ishwar Das (PW 13) that he saw Sansar Chand enquiring from Jagdip Singh (PW 4) about the whereabouts of the deceased does not inspire confidence. He is a neighbours of Jagdip Singh and is an interested witness. This circumstance even if believed does not connect the accused with the offence. The statement of Ishwar Das (PW 13) that he saw Sansar Chand enquiring from Jagdip Singh (PW 4) about the whereabouts of the deceased does not inspire confidence. He is a neighbours of Jagdip Singh and is an interested witness. Similarly the statement of Bishan Das (PW 14) to the effect that at about 4 PM on 14th March, 1982 Piar Chand and Joginder Singh took liquor near his sawing machine cannot connect the accused with the offence. 28. Regarding motive, it may be mentioned that Shamsher Singh was admittedly running his clinic at village Barra. This clinic was not closed till the death of Shamsher Singh. The wife of Shamsher Singh was employed at Naura. The only enmity suggested by the prosecution is that Shamsher Singh had given some wrong injection to the mother of Sansar Chand and Piar Chand in the year 1979, i e. about three years prior to the present occurrence. It does not appear to reason that a man would take revenge after a period of about three years. There could be many opportunities during this period of three years for taking a revenge, if the accused actually wanted to take a revenge and the accused would not have lost any time in taking a revenge. Thus, in our opinion, no motive is proved. 29. According to the prosecution version the deceased was fired at during the mid night hours at his clinic in village Barra but the assailant left the gun in the clinic and ran away. The gun was taken away from the clinic on the morning of 15th March, 1932. Now, firstly, no assailant would leave the gun in the clinic after committing a murder, and, secondly, if the assailant leaves the gun in a hurry or inadvertently, then he would never come to take the gun from the clinic on the next day during morning hours. The prosecution case is that Piar Chand came to take the gun at about 10.30 AM on 15th March, 1982. Puran Singh (PW 15) and Smt. Lajwanti (PW 16) were produced to prove this fact but they have not supported the prosecution version. 30. Regarding the recovery of the cartridges and gun it only suggests that the gun was fired through. Puran Singh (PW 15) and Smt. Lajwanti (PW 16) were produced to prove this fact but they have not supported the prosecution version. 30. Regarding the recovery of the cartridges and gun it only suggests that the gun was fired through. The recovery of gun and cartridges cannot be considered to be a circumstance against the accused persons, 31. The various circumstances pointed out to us by the learned Assistant Advocate-General and considered by the Sessions judge are not sufficient to lead to the conclusion that the accused committed the murder of Shamsher Singh (deceased). 32. It may be mentioned that the prosecution has not produced Basant Singh, who is a neighbouring shopkeeper. He informed Mast Ram (PW 8) at the earliest about the death of Shamsher Singh. Basant Singh being a neighbour could also hear the noise of the gun shot, 33. Bahadur Singh (PW 1) who gave the application (Exhibit PA) got the information regarding the death of Shamsher Singh from Jagdip Singh (PW 4). Jagdip Singh has stated that he was informed by Ishar Das, a Mail- runner. Mast Ram (PW 8) had informed Ishar Das that Shamsher Singh had been murdered. Ishar Das Mail-runner has also not been produced. 34. The death took place between the night of 14th and 15th March, 1982 and it was noticed at about 9.30 AM by Mast Ram (PW 8), Mast Ram sent the information to Jagdip Singh who received the information in noon time. He along with others reached the clinic of the deceased at about 1.30 PM on 15th March, I982, The application (Exhibit PA) was filed on 15th March, 1982 by Bahadur Singh (PW 1). Bahadur Singh reached the Police Station at 10.30 PM on 15th March, 1982. The distance between Police Station and the place of occurrence is about 10 K. M. which in the normal course should not take more than two to three hours. If the matter had come to the knowledge of Bahadur Singh (PW 1) at 1.30 or 2 P. M. then there was no question of waiting for another 8 hours. The police reached the spot at 11,30 PM which means that the distance could be covered by the police in one hour during night hours. Thus, we find that there is also delay in lodging the report, 35. The police reached the spot at 11,30 PM which means that the distance could be covered by the police in one hour during night hours. Thus, we find that there is also delay in lodging the report, 35. The case was registered on 18th March, 1982 at 7 P. M. and till that time the identity of the accused was not known. If there was any motive or a rumour in the village about the revenge having been taken by the accused persons then there should not have been any delay in registering a case against the accused persons and their names could find mention in F. I. R. The post mortem was also conducted on 17th March, 1932, at 12-05 P. M. 36. It is not understood as to why Shamsher Singh (deceased) went to his clinic during night hours of 14th March, 1982 specially when he was living with his in-laws for the last about three or four days. If he could live with his in-laws for three or four days as a guest then there was no occasion for him to sleep in his own clinic on the night intervening 14th and 15th March, 1982, This part of the story does not appear to be natural. 37. Thus, from the above discussion, we find that the circumstantial evidence relied upon by the prosecution is not sufficient to prove that the accused have committed the offence. In these circumstances we are of the opinion that the Sessions Judge was right in acquitting Sansar Chand and Joginder Singh and the appeal of the State should be dismissed. We are also of the opinion that even against Piar Chand no offence is proved beyond any reasonable doubt, and the appeal of Piar Chand should be accepted and the judgment of the Sessions judge should be set aside. 38. As a result of the above discussion the Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 1983 is dismissed and the Criminal Appeal No. 98 of 1982 is accepted. Piar Chand is acquitted of the charges. He be set at liberty, if not required in any other case. Order accordingly.