K. P. MOHAPATRA, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant has challenged the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, convicting him for offences under sections 302, 380 and 457 I. P. C. and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the first offence. ( 2 ) PROSECUTION case in brief was that informant, Sambhunath Dalabehera (P. W. 8) had a grocery shop at village Rengalbeda with in Reamal; Police Station of Deogarh Sub Division. Deceased Baisnab Sahu was serving as his watchman. In the morning of 5-8-1983 he found that a hole was cut in one of the walls of the shop house. Seeing this, he called some villagers and when the shop was opened, it was found that the deceased was lying dead inside in a pool of blood and grocery articles worth Rs. 200/-, had been stolen. He suspected the appellant and one Santosh Meher, who had previously committed theft of cash from the shop, and lodged F. I. R. (Ext. 6) at the police station. Investigation commenced, in course of which post mortem of the dead body of the deceased was performed, the weapon of assault, an axe (M. O. 1) and the wearing apparels of the appellant were seized by seizure lists (Exts. 8 and 10), the incriminating articles suspected to have contained blood stains were sent for chemical and serological tests and reports (Exts. 12 and 13) were obtained, the appellant was medically examine ed and last of all arrangement was made for recording of his confessional statement by the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Deogarh. After close of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against him. ( 3 ) THE defence of the appellant was denial of his involvement in the murder of the deceased. Further, he retracted the confession and stated that he had been tortured and forced to make a confessional statement. ( 4 ) LEARNED Sessions Judge fully accepted the prosecution case and by the impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid. ( 5 ) AT the hearing, it was not disputed that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. ( 6 ) MR. ( 4 ) LEARNED Sessions Judge fully accepted the prosecution case and by the impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid. ( 5 ) AT the hearing, it was not disputed that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. ( 6 ) MR. M. R. Panda, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, raised the following contentions: (1) There was no evidence that while in police custody the appellant gave information leading to the discovery and seizure of the weapon of assault, the axe (M. O. 1); (2) The reports of the chemical examiner and the serologist (Exts. 12 and 13) did not connect the appellant with the crime; (3) There was absolutely no evidence that the appellant had committed house breaking and theft; and (4) The confession which was retracted was not at all voluntary. He streneously assailed the impugned judgment, in which the learned Sessions Judge had taken note of the above circumstances and urged that being unable to collect evidence against the culprit who had committed the murder, evidence of discovery and seizure was concocted and particularly a make-belief confessional statement was procured from an ignorant lad aged about 15 years belonging to a remote forest area of the State. It is necessary to examine the above contentions. ( 7 ) EXT. 10 is the seizure list by which the Investigating Officer (P. W. 10) had seized the axe (M. O. I) on 6. 8. 1983 in the presence of witnesses including P. W. 7 from the dwelling house of the appellant. It was stated therein that while in police custody the appellant gave information which led the Investigating Officer (P. W. 10) to discover the axe (M 0. 1) within the meaning of section 27 of the Evidence Act. P. W. 7 stated in his evidence that the inquest and the seizure of the axe (M. O. I) were on the same day. He did not identify his signature in the seizure list (Ext. 10), nor was ho asked to do so during trial. The Investigating Officer (P. W. 10), on the other hand, stated in his evidence that inquest over the dead body was done on 5. 8. 1983 and the axe (M. O. I) was seized on 6. 8. 1983. It will further appear from his evidence that the appellant as not the soleoccupant of the house. The Investigating Officer (P. W. 10), on the other hand, stated in his evidence that inquest over the dead body was done on 5. 8. 1983 and the axe (M. O. I) was seized on 6. 8. 1983. It will further appear from his evidence that the appellant as not the soleoccupant of the house. He stayed in it with his parents and other members of the family. It does not appear from his evidence that the appellant was in sole occupation of the room or place from where the axe (M. O. I) was discovered and seized. He did not enquire as to the ownership thereof. The above evidence is not at all convincing so as to press section 27 of the Evidence Act into service in order to incriminate the appellant. We are, therefore, of the view that this is not a reliable piece of circumstance to be used against him. ( 8 ) THE report of the serologist (Ext. 13) shows that the axe (M. O. 1) and the Chader (M. O. V) seized from the appellant contained traces of human blood. No blood could be detected from the appellants half pant (M. O. IV ). Sample of blood stained earth taken from the spot also contained human blood. The blood group, however, was not determined. In the absence thereof, it cannot conclusively be said that the axe (M. O. 1) and the Chader (M. O. V) contained traces of the blood of the deceased. We, therefore, take the view that this piece of evidence did not indicated involvement of the appellant with the crime. ( 9 ) NONE of the witnesses saw the appellant committing theft of grocery articles by house breaking. No grocery article was seized from his possession. We were a little bit surprised to find that the learned Sessions Judge without any trace of evidence against the appellant convicted him for offences under sections 380 and 457, I. P. C. It is suffice for us to say that there is absolute lack of basis for conviction. ( 10 ) LASTLY, we will deal with the voluntary nature of the confession of the appellant made before the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Deogarh. The confessional statement is Ext. 14 recorded on 8. 8. 1983. The appellant is said to have stated that he had disputes with the deceased from before. ( 10 ) LASTLY, we will deal with the voluntary nature of the confession of the appellant made before the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Deogarh. The confessional statement is Ext. 14 recorded on 8. 8. 1983. The appellant is said to have stated that he had disputes with the deceased from before. He was sleeping inside the shop of Sambhu Behera in the night between 4th and 5th August, 1983. He killed, him by giving blows on neck by means of a Tangia as a result of which he died. It appears from the order passed by the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate on 7. 8. 1983 that the appellant was produced before him in custody by a police Havildar and Constable at 4. 00 P. M. The appellant did not complain of ill-treatment by the police. He remanded him to jail custody till 20. 8. 1983. When the Investigating Officer prayed for recording his confessional statement, the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate gave his identity and administered the usual caution and gave 24 hours for his reflection and directed that he be produced at 4. 00 p. m. on 8. 8. 1983. When he was produced as directed, he allowed half an hour for further reflection and left him in the custody of the court peon. Thereafter, he recorded the confessional statement and was satisfied that it was voluntarily given. Mr. Panda drew our attention to the evidence of P. W. 2, the Medical Officer, as well as the statement of the appellant made under section 313, Cr. P. C. P. W. 2 had examined the appellant on 7. 8. 1983 and found three abrasions on different parts of his body as per his report (Ext. 3/1 ). The injuries though simple in nature could have been caused by hard and blunt weapon and also by coming into contact with mud wall. To a question, the appellant answered that the police assaulted and forced him to confess. The evidence of the Medical Officer (P. W. 2) was obviously recorded so that the prosecution could show that, while entering inside the room through a hole in one of the walls, the appellant had sustained the abrasions. The accused can equally take advantage of the above evidence in support of his case that he was assaulted on 7. 8. 1983, a day before the confessional statement (Ext. 14) was recorded. Mr. The accused can equally take advantage of the above evidence in support of his case that he was assaulted on 7. 8. 1983, a day before the confessional statement (Ext. 14) was recorded. Mr. Panda further drew our attention to the facts that the appellant aged about 15 years was an ignorant lad having no education and belonged to a remote forest area of the State. He was in police custody through out except during the 24 hours he was remanded to jail custody and for half an hour before the confessional statement was recorded for his reflection. He understood nothing of the court or its caution or procedure. In such circumstances, it can hardly be said that out of repentance he confessed his guilt quite voluntarily. On the other hand, the shadow of the police and the brooding feart was hovering around him so that even if he was in jail custody and court custody for about 24 hours he could really detach himself and think independently of confessing his crime. We can just visualise his helplessness, fear and awe when he found himself surrounded by police, strange and unfamiliar persons in a court of which he could never conceive, and in -such a situation it was quite likely that he was bewildered. This being the state of evidence, circumstances and probabilities, we are at one with Mr. Panda and are unable to agree with the learned. Sessions Judge that the confession was of voluntary character. Therefore, it has no evidenciary value. ( 11 ) IT is manifest that there was no direct evidence of the murder. The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution and which have been discussed have crushed to the ground. There is complete lack of evidence of any form for the appellantts involvement in the murder of the deceased. Therefore, the judgment of conviction and sentence is unsustainable. ( 12 ) FOR the, reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant for the offences under sections 302, 380 and 457, I. P. C. are set aside. He should be set at liberty forthwith. .