JUDGMENT : J.M. Mahapatra, J. - The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 28-1-1988 of the learned Sessions Judge, Sambalpur convicting the Appellant under Sections 302 and 201, I.P.C. and sentencing him respectively to imprisonment for life and rigorous imprisonment for seven years, both the sentences having been directed to run concurrently. 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are these: At the material time, the deceased Mina Kumari Patel and her father, Madhusudan (P. W. 1) were the only inmates of their house situate in village Matigola under Jharsuguda Police Station. The deceased used to sleep during night in the house of her aunt Lalita, which was adjacent to her own house. In the night of one Tuesday (6-1-1987), the deceased as usual had slept in Lalita's house. As she did not return next day (Wednesday), p. w. 1, her father on Thursday informed the villagers about this fact. On the advice of the villagers he lodged a missing report at the Police Station. Thereafter a meeting of the villagers was convened with regard to the missing of the deceased. The accused Battam @ Gautam Bhaisa was also called to that meeting. When questioned by the villagers as to what happened to the deceased, the accused replied that he had finished her. Thereafter the father of the deceased reported the matter at Jharsuguda Police Station and the Officer-in-charge, Jharsuguda P. S. took down the statements and prepared the F.I.R. (Ext. 9), registered a case and took up investigation. In course of investigation, he on the statements of the accused, recovered the dead body of the deceased kept inside a gunny bag and thrown inside a well in the village held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. He also took various other steps in the investigation of the case. P. w. 9, the Circle Inspector of Police, Jharsuguda took charge of the investigation of the case from p. w. 11 on 10-1-1987, made further investigation into the case and finally submitted charge sheet against the accused. Being committed to the Court of session, the Appellant stead his trial for the offence under Sections 302 and 201, I.P.C. and was convicted thereunder as stated earlier. 3. The plea of the Appellant at the trial was one of total denial. Being committed to the Court of session, the Appellant stead his trial for the offence under Sections 302 and 201, I.P.C. and was convicted thereunder as stated earlier. 3. The plea of the Appellant at the trial was one of total denial. He has denied to have made any extra judicial confession before the villagers. 4. In order to prove its case prosecution has examined as many as twelve witnesses of whom p.w. 1, the father of the deceased is the informant, p. ws. 2,3,4,5 and 7 are the witnesses to extra judicial confession made by the accused, p. w. 6 is a witness to the recovery of dead body from inside the well, by p. w. 11, p. w. 8 is a constable carrying the dead body for post mortem examination, p.ws. 9,10 and 11 are the Investigating Officers and p. w. 12 is the medical officer, conducting autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. Learned Trial Judge relied on the evidence of the extra judicial confession made by the accused before p. ws. 2 to 5 and 7 besides the circumstantial evidence namely, the prior illicit love between the accused and the deceased and the missing of the deceased from the house and the absence of the accused from the place of his stay in the night of 6/7-1-1987. There being no direct evidence in this case, he accepted the prosecution case relying on the items of evidence indicated above and held the accused guilty of the offence under Sections 302 and 201, I.P.C. and has convicted him thereunder. 5. Mr. Misra, the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant has mainly contended that the conviction of the Appellant having been based on circumstantial evidence extra judicial confession of the Appellant said to have been made before the p. ws. 2 to 5 and 7, and the recovery of the dead body of the deceased from inside the well at the instance of the Appellant, there are several infirmities in the evidence on record, from which the guilt of the Appellant cannot be said to have been established beyond all reasonable doubts. According to him the various links in the chain of circumstantial have not been established in order to bring home the guilt of the Appellant. 6. According to him the various links in the chain of circumstantial have not been established in order to bring home the guilt of the Appellant. 6. Before we take up the different items of circumstantial evidence, and the evidence regarding the extra judicial confession, we propose to take up some suspicious features of the case which appear to us to cut at the root of the prosecution case. According to the evidence of p. ws. 1, the father of the deceased, who lodged F. I. R. on 9-1-1987, Saturday, the deceased aged about 18 years was missing in the night of wednesday that is 6/7-1-1987. Evidence is also led through the witnesses, p. ws. 2 to 5 and 7 that in the same night, the accused who used to sleep in one but along with p. ws. 2 and 3 did not turn up to sleep with them. It is the prosecution case that the deceased was done to death by the accused in that night, put inside a gunny bag. M. O. I. and thrown inside a wen situate about a distance of half kilometre away from the village Basti. It appears from the evidence of p. ws. 3,6 and the Investigating Officer, p. w. 11 that the dead body which was put inside a gunny bag, M. O. I., was recovered on 9-1-1987 at 2 P. M. by p. w. 1, and that the gunny bag was dipped inside the well which had chest deep water. P. w. 11 has stated in his evidence, and it also appears from the inquest report, Ext. 1, that there was bleeding from the nostrils of the deceased. His evidence would thus go to show that after the recovery of the dead body of the deceased from inside the well he noticed that there was bleeding from the nostrils, ligature mark on the neck and mark of injury on the left side of the fore-head above the eye-brow. The Medical Officer, p. w. 12 who conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased at about 9 a. m. of 10-1-1987, apart from finding some other injuries going to prove that the death of the deceased was homicidal, has also stated in his evidence that bleeding from the nose was present. The Medical Officer, p. w. 12 who conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased at about 9 a. m. of 10-1-1987, apart from finding some other injuries going to prove that the death of the deceased was homicidal, has also stated in his evidence that bleeding from the nose was present. In cross-examination, however, he has emphatically stated that there could be no bleeding from a person remaining submerged in water for about 24 hours following the death. The medical opinion of the Doctor as indicated above would thus go to show that the death of the deceased could never have taken place in the night of 6/7-1-1987, that is, more than three days or seventy two hours before the post-mortem examination conducted by the Doctor, p. w. 12. 7. Apart from the foregoing facts and circumstances improbabiling the prosecution case that the death of the deceased taken place in the night of Wednesday (6/7-1-1987), the other materials on record, in our opinion are also not sufficient to connect the Appellant with the alleged crime. As a matter of fact, certain infirmities are writ large on the face of the prosecution case. The evidence of the father of the deceased, p. w. 1, is that the deceased used to sleep in the house of Lalita, wife of his elder brother. In this case prosecution has not examined Lalita as a witness to testify to the fact of the missing of the deceased in the night of 6/7-1-1987. Lalita in the facts and circumstances of the case was a very material witness for the prosecution, who could have thrown light as to what happened to Lalita in that fateful night. She could have also thrown light on the movement of the accused in the company of the deceased in view of their previous affectionate relationship. The non-examination of Lalita is, therefore, very much fatal to the prosecution story. The next improbability is that in view of the previous relationship between the accused and the deceased, it was highly unlikely that the accused would have taken a decision to do a way with the deceased, even though the deceased had become pregnant through him. As a matter of fact, no cogent and reliable evidence has been led to establish that the deceased had become pregnant about two months prior to her death. As a matter of fact, no cogent and reliable evidence has been led to establish that the deceased had become pregnant about two months prior to her death. P. w. 1, the father of the deceased and Lalita, the aunt of the deceased were the most competent persons to depose to this fact; but p. w. 1 is totally silent about the pregnancy of the deceased and Lalita has also not been examined by the prosecution. The further inconsistency is that although according to p. ws. 2, 3 and 7 the accused caused the death of the deceased because of the pregnancy and because of the unwillingness of the accused to marry her on that account p. w. 1, the father of the deceased has deposed that he did not know if the accused gave out any reason for doing away with the deceased. 8. On the item of evidence, namely, extra, judicial confession said to have been made by the accused before p. w. 2 at the first instance on 7-1-1987 (Thursday) and then before p. ws. 3,4, 5 and 7 and other villagers in the Panchayat, it would be noticed that the so-called extra-judicial confession said to have been made by the accused does not appear to us to be either true, voluntary or trustworthy. This is particularly so when we notice that there is delay of at least two days in lodging of the F. I. R. by p. w. 1. According to p. w. 1, he came to know about the incident in the morning of 7-1-1987. It also transpires from the evidence that the so-called extra judicial confession was made by the accused on the same day. It was, therefore, incumbent on the prosecution to explain why there was delay of two days in lodging the F. I. R. although the Police Station was only at a distance of 15 K. Ms. from the village where the incident took place and the road is motorable. The delay in lodging the F. I. R. in the facts and circumstances of the case when no direct evidence is available assumes great importance. It leaves ample room to throw doubt on the entire prosecution story as presented in the Court. from the village where the incident took place and the road is motorable. The delay in lodging the F. I. R. in the facts and circumstances of the case when no direct evidence is available assumes great importance. It leaves ample room to throw doubt on the entire prosecution story as presented in the Court. The delay not only leads to the reasonable inference that the prosecution story implicating the accused might have been cooked up, but it also casts a great doubt on the version of prosecution witnesses, p. ws. 2 to 5 and 7 with regard to their testimony about the extra-judicial confession and about the recovery of the dead body from the well at the instance of the accused. Apart from what is discussed above, as indicated earlier, the medical opinion which highly improbabilises the version of the prosecution as to the time and date of the death of the deceased makes the evidence regarding the extra judicial confession "I wholly unacceptable. 9. In the light of the foresaid discussions, we find that although the death of the deceased has been proved to be homicidal. prosecution has failed to prove the various links in the prosecution case so as to form a complete chain from which the only reasonable hypothesis would be the guilt of the Appellant. For the reasons discussed above, the evidence as to extra judicial confession, of the Appellant is also not acceptable being unworthy of credit. We would, therefore, hold in conclusion that prosecution has signally failed to prove the guilt of the Appellant beyond all reasonable doubts, and, therefore, while disagreeing with the finding of the learned trial Judge, we would allow the appeal and set aside the order of conviction and sentence and direct that the Appellant be set at liberty forthwith. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence passed against the Appellant is set aside and the Appellant be set at liberty forthwith. G.B. Patnaik, J. I agree. Appeal allowed. Final Result : Allowed