Judgment Satyeshwar Roy, J. 1. The two appellants were tried along with Yakub Munda for the murder of Rebka Mundian Yakub was acquitted. The appellants were convicted under sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to imprisonment for life. They were also convicted to seven years rigorous imprisonment. 2. The written report submitted by P.W. 5 (the Mukhia) on 4th September 1977 was treated as the first information although P. W. 4 by letter dated 10th August, 1977 had informed the officer-in-charge. Jaldega Police Station about the murder of his wife Rebeka. The court below accepted the case of the prosecution that the appellants had confessed that they has murdered Rebeka and threw the dead body into a Nala. It found the appellants guilty. 3. Mr. Sahu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, submitted that although Rebka disappeared in January, 1977 no information about it was lodged by P W. 4 before August, 1977 when by material exhibit I he informed the police that he had learnt from Manual (P. W. 6) that the appellant had murdered his wife Rehka. He further submitted that the appellants made the confession being threatened by P W. 5 and P.W. 8 (Sarpanch). He urged that the appellants cannot be held guilty on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution. 4. Letter dated 10th August. 1977 written by P.W. 4 to the police was marked as material exhibit I. We fail to understand why the letter was marked as material exhibit. Further, from this letter we find that it disclosed the fact of a cognizable offence and this ought to have been treated as first information. We further find that the Investigating Officer who was not examined in this case adopted a procedure unknown to law for that he showed the letter of P.W. 4, to P.W. 5 and asked PW. 5 to enquire about the matter. The enquiry report of P.W. 5 was treated as the first information. The report of P.W. 5 could not have been treated as the first information and the Investigating Officer could not have asked P.W. 5 to enquire into the allegation made by P.W. 4 in his letter dated 19th August, 1977 we, therefore, do not put any reliance on the report of P.W, 5 which was marked as exhibit I. 5. The report of P.W. 5 could not have been treated as the first information and the Investigating Officer could not have asked P.W. 5 to enquire into the allegation made by P.W. 4 in his letter dated 19th August, 1977 we, therefore, do not put any reliance on the report of P.W, 5 which was marked as exhibit I. 5. From material exhibit I, we find that Manual knew that the appellants had murder red Rebka. Manual was examined as PW. 6. He in his evidence stated that he learned about the murder of Rebeka for the first time when P.Ws. 5 and 8 came to the village to enquire into the matter. The allegations made in material exhibit I that the appellants had murdered Rebeka does not find support from the evidence of P.W. 6. 6. From the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 4, we find that Rebeka was in the habit of leaving her borne without informing any body and use to return after six months and even one year. P.W. 6 1n his evidence stated that P.Ws. 5 and IS told the appellants to confess their guilt otherwise the police would harass them. The confession of the appellants was not voluntary, and no reliance can be placed on such confession. We are, therefore, of the opinion hat there is no material for holding that the appellants had murdered Rebeka. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the court below against the appellants are set aside. The appellants who were enlarged on bail, are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds.