JUDGMENT : G.B. Patnaik, J. - Appellant Khetramohan Bhoi has been convicted u/s 302, Indian Penal Code, and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life by the Additional Sessions Judge, Puri, in Sessions Trial No. 9/78 of 1978. He has been acquitted of the charges under Sections 201 and 379, Indian Penal Code. His co-accused Kuma alias Kumar Parida has been acquitted of all the charges. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that Khetramohan is a mason by profession. Deceased. Gopal Sahu, had constructed a house in his village Salanga under Nimapara Police Station, but had not been able to put the roof on it. After arranging some funds, he contacted accused Khetramohan to arrange some chips and iron rods so that casting of the roof could be done. It was suggested by Khetramohan that both of them should go and purchase the materials. On 6-3-1978 Gopal and Khetramohan went to Nimapara with necessary funds. Khetramohan had earlier arranged that one Narayan Misra (though arrayed as an accused but was shown as an absconder) and accused Kumar (who has since been acquitted) should also go with them. Deceased and accused Khetramohan went to Kakatpur from Nimapara by bus and were followed by Kumar and Narayan in the next bus. At Kakatpur, Narayan purchased a bottle of squash, a glass, some sweets and a bottle of mesiad and all four of them proceeded to Konark by the cart-track. Before reaching Konark in the casuarina and casnew-nut forest called Majhimoda jungle near village Haulpatna, the occurrence took place. It is the definite prosecution case that metacid mixed with squash was given to deceased and after drinking the same he fell down and thereafter he was killed. The cash which the deceased was carrying was removed. 3. P.W. 20, the son-in-law of the deceased who was staying in the house of the deceased as domesticated son-in-law on 10-3-1978 retruned home and came to know that his father-in-law had not come back having left his village on 6-3-1978. So he lodged a station diary entry (Ext. 14) at Nimapara Police Station before P.W. 23, the Officer-in-charge of Nimapara Police Station. Thereafter messages were sent to different Police Stations to trace out deceased Gopal Sahu. So he lodged a station diary entry (Ext. 14) at Nimapara Police Station before P.W. 23, the Officer-in-charge of Nimapara Police Station. Thereafter messages were sent to different Police Stations to trace out deceased Gopal Sahu. On 11-3-1978, P.W. 24, the S.I. of Police, Konark Out Post, got the report from Grama Rakshi (P.W. 2) that a dead body was lying inside the casuarina forest near the village. P.W. 24 immediately thereupon visited the forest and found a dead body lying and registered a U.P. case. He also sent information to Officer-in-charge, Nimapara Police Station, to send the informant who had made the station diary entry, for the purpose of identification of the dead body. Accordingly, P.Ws. 1 and 20 were taken to Majhimoda forest who on seeing the dead body identified it to be that of Gopal Sahu. Therefore, P.W. 24 recorded the report of P.W. 1 which was treated as F.I.R. (Ext. 1). Investigation pIoceeded and accused Kheuamohan and Kumar were arrested. While in custody, Khetramohan led P.W. 24 to Majhimoda casuarina forest and at his instance, the squash bottle (M.O. V) and the metacid bottle (M.O. VI) were recovered and seized. Khetramohan also made a judicial confession on 23-3-1978 before the judicial Magistrate (P.W. 21). The confessional statement is Ext. 12. Ultimately charge sheet was filed against the two accused persons treating the third accused Narayan as an absconder. 4. P.W. 16, the Assistant Surgeon of Puri Headquarters Hospital who held the post-mortem examination over the dead body could not opine the cause of death since the body had been highly decomposed. 5. Admittedly, there is no eye-witness to the occurrence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge on an analysis of the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 6 and 20 came to hold that the dead body which was found from Majhimoda. This finding is not assailed in this appeal before us. 5. Admittedly, there is no eye-witness to the occurrence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge on an analysis of the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 6 and 20 came to hold that the dead body which was found from Majhimoda. This finding is not assailed in this appeal before us. Prosecution in order to sustain the conviction rehed upon the following circumstances: (1) The fact that deceased Gopal requested accused Khetramohan to arrange chips, iron rods and cement and Khetramohan agreed to do the same; (ii) Both Khetramohan and Gopal were seen together at different places at Nimapara and Kakatpur on 6-3-1978; (iii) The confessional statement of accused Xhetramohan recorded by the Magistrate on 23rd of March, 1978; and (iv) While in custody, accused Khetramohan led P.W. 24 to Majhimoda jungle and gave discovery of the matacid bottle. The learned Additional Sessions Judge on a thorough consideration of the evidence, which will be discussed later, held that the prosecution had been able to prove beyond all reasonable doubt the circumstances enumerated in items (I), (ii) and (iv). So far as the circumstance enumerated in item (iii) namely, the confessional statement, the learned Trial Judge held it to be exculpatory in nature and, therefore, did not amount to confession. But the learned Trial Court took the inculpatory part of the statement as admission made by Khetramohan relevant u/s 21 of the Evidence Act and on these materials convicted accused Khetramohan u/s 302, Indian Penal Code. Since no evidence was there against accused Kumar, he was acquitted. 6. Before examining the evidence on record, it would be appropriate to state a word as to the law on circumstantial evidence. It has been a settled principle of law that where the case depends entirely on circumstantial evidence, the standard of proof required to convict the accused of such offence is that the circumstances relied upon must be fully established and the chain of evidence furnished by these circumstances should be so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with innocence of the accused. Not only the various links in the chain should be established beyond reasonable doubt, but also the chain should be so complete as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused. In the case of Awadhi Yadav and Another Vs. Not only the various links in the chain should be established beyond reasonable doubt, but also the chain should be so complete as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused. In the case of Awadhi Yadav and Another Vs. The State of Bihar their Lordships held: Before a person can be convicted on the strength of circumstantial evidence the circumstances in question must be satisfactorily established and the proved circumstances must bring home the offence to the accused beyond reasonable doubt. If these circumstances or some of them can be explained by any other reasonable hypothesis, then the accused must have the benefit of that hypothesis. 7. We proceed to examine the evidence on record on the aforesaid principles. P.W. 1 stated on oath that her father had contracted accused Khetramohan to arrange materials for the roof casting and Khetramohan agreed to do the same. P.W. 3, a co-villager, corroborated this evidence and stated that Khetramohan sent intimation to the deceased through him to the effect that he had already fixed up a contractor who would supply the necessary materials and suggested that the deceased should accompany Khetramohan on the next morning. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the testimony of these two witnesses and, therefore, the first circumstance relied upon by the prosecution, namely accused Khetramohan agreed to arrange material for the deceased for the roof casting and also suggested that they should leave on the morning of 6th, March, 1978, with necessary funds has been fully proved. 8. P.W. 4 met deceased Gopal and Khetramohan who were standing on the Ghanti bridge at about 7 a.m. on 6-3-1978. When Khetramohan told P.W. 4 that they were going to a contractor, P.W. 5 deposed in court that he had seen accused Khetramohan and deceased Gopal near village Luhatikiri while they were going on foot towards Nimapara. P.W. 7, a co-villager of Gopal who was taking some training at Astaring stated in court that on 6-3-1978 while he was at Kakatpur bus stand at about 3 or 3.30 p.m., he saw Gopal and Khetramohan purchasing pan from a shop. To his query, Gopal replied that they had come to purchase chips. The evidence of the aforesaid witnesses had not been assailed by the counsel for the accused-Appellant. To his query, Gopal replied that they had come to purchase chips. The evidence of the aforesaid witnesses had not been assailed by the counsel for the accused-Appellant. Prosecution has thus been able to prove that Gopal and Khetramohan were seen together near their village, at Nimapara and last at Kakatpur bus-stand on 6-3-1978 at 3 p.m. There is, however, no material on record to show that the deceased was last seen alive in the company of the accused just before his murder. The evidence of P.W. 25 Bhagaban Mohanty shows that the distance between Kakatpur and the spot where the dead body was found is 15 or 16 kilometres. 9. Next comes for consideration the alleged confessional statement (Ext. 13) made by accused Khetramohan on 23-3-1978 before the judicial Magistrate First Class (P.W. 21) A perusal of the confessional statement and the records of the concerned Magistrate as well as the evidence of P.W. 21 shows that the learned Magistrate had taken all precautions and had observed due formalities required u/s 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before recording the confessional statement. The learned Trial judge has also in paragraph 18 of his judgment held that the statement made by the accused was voluntary. The counsel for the Appellant challenges this finding on the ground that the evidence on record discloses that the I.O. was present in the court premises while the confession was being recorded and therefore, the confession was the outcome of threat or coercion and could not have been termed as voluntary. In this connection the learned Counsel for the Appellant referred to us the relevant portion of the evidence of the Magistrate (P.W. 21). We have carefully gone through the evidence of the Magistrate and we do not find any materials to hold that the confession was not recorded beyond the sight and hearing of any police officer. The evidence further discloses that the accused was produced before the Magistrate on 22nd of March, 1978; he was sufficiently wanted by the Magistrate and then sent to jail custody; the accused was produced again on 23rd of March, 1972 from the jail custody, the Magistrate repeated the necessary warnings: the police officials present inside the court were asked to vacate and thereafter the confessional statement was recorded observing all the requirements of Jaw. In this view of the matter, we reject the contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant and hold that the confessional statement was a voluntary one. A perusal of the statement (Ext. 13) shows that it is not a confession of all, since the maker thereof has completely exculpated himself from the act of murder. The statement is an exculpatory one. Mr R.K. Patra, learned Additional Government Advocate candidly conceded to the position that the statement is exculpatory in nature, but he submitted that portions of the statement which are inculpatory can be considered and used as an admission of the accused. In support of his contention he placed reliance on a Bench decision of this Court in the case of Pingal Khadia and Others Vs. The State and the leading decision on the point of the Privy Council in the case of Ghulam Hussain v. The Kind 51 (1950) Cri. L.J. 1552. Whether a court can rejected a part of a confessional statement and rely on the remainder part along with the other evidence adduced to hold an accused guilty of the offence charged, was considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Nishi Kant Jha Vs. The State of Bihar. On a review of the several decisions on the point, their Lordships observed that if the exculpatory part of the statement is found to be inherently improbable and is contradicted by die other evidence on record, the court can exclude the exculpatory part and accept the inculpatory portion in support of the charge against the accused. We scanned the so-called confessional statement (Ext. 13) and asked the learned Additional Government Advocate to point out as to which portion of the statement we can consider in support of the charge. The only portion which can be relied on is the admission of the accused that he was present at Majhimoda forest when Narayan gave drinks mixed with metacid. This admission of Khetramohan and our earlier finding that Khetramohan and Gopal were seen together at Kakatpur on 6-3-1978 at 330 p.m. are not sufficient to sustain the conviction. 10. So far as the last circumstance relied upon by the learned Trial Judge, namely, while in custody accused gave discovery of a metacid bottle, the relevant evidence on record is that of P.W. 24, the I.O.; P.W. 13 and P.W. 14. 10. So far as the last circumstance relied upon by the learned Trial Judge, namely, while in custody accused gave discovery of a metacid bottle, the relevant evidence on record is that of P.W. 24, the I.O.; P.W. 13 and P.W. 14. P.W. 13 did not support the prosecution case and went to the extent of saying that he was not present w hen the metacid bottle was alleged to have been seized at the instance of accused Khetramohan while he was in custody. He only stated that he had signed Exts. 9 and 10 which had been prepared by the police. This statement of P.W. 13 makes the seizure under Ext. 9 and 10 suspicious it is difficult to accept the statement of the I.O. (P.W. 24) that accused while in custody led him to the Majhimoda casuarina forest and pointed out the place from where a metacid bottle was recovered and seized. P.W. 14 tried to support the evidence of P.W. 24 in this regard to some extent, but contradicted him on the point as (sic) who dug the place and brought our the metacid bottle. Though according to P.W. 24, it was P.W. 14 who dug the place and brought out the metacid bottle, according to P.W. 14, it was the accused who dug the place and brought out the met acid bottle. This is a vital contradiction and, therefore, on this evidence it is not safe to hold that the accused led the police while in custody and gave recovery of the metacid bottle. Thus in our view this circumstance has not been established beyond all reasonable doubts. 11. In the ultimate analysis, therefore, circumstances (i) and (ii) and a part of the confessional statement can only be considered to find out whether the accused can be convicted of a charge of murder. The last seen theory has its own limitations and without anything more on record cannot form the basis for conviction. From the established facts that accused and deceased were seen together on 6-3-1978 at different places like his village, Nimapara and Kakatpur between morning till 3 p.m. and the admission of the accused that he was present at Majhimoda forest where the occurrence was alleged to have taken place, the accused cannot be convicted on the charge of murder of deceased Gopal. 12. 12. We would, therefore, hold that the prosecution has failed to substantiate the charge u/s 302, Indian Penal Code, against accused Khetramohan. We accordingly allow this appeal, set aside the conviction and sentences passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Puri and acquit the said accused of the offence u/s 302, Indian Penal Code. The bail bond executed by him is cancelled. P.K. Mohanti, A.C.J. 13. I agree. Final Result : Allowed