JUDGMENT Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J —The appellant, Chain Singh, alias Chaino, stands convicted under sections 302/201, I. P, C. for causing the death of Parkash Chand and for causing disappearance of the death body of the deceased and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs 500 for offence under section 302,1. P. C In case of non-payment of fine, he is directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months. He is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs 200 for the offence under section 201, I. P. C. In case of non-payment of fine, he is directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 15 days, by the learned Sessions Judge, Chamba Division, at Chamba in Sessions Case No 17 of 1989 decided on August 23, 1990. The appellant has preferred this appeal challenging the correctness of the judgment recorded by the learned Sessions Judge. 2. The facts leading to the prosecution case are that Parkash Chand deceased was married with Smt Bimla PW 4 about four years before the alleged murder of the deceased. The deceased and Smt Bimla PW 4 used to reside at the house of Bimlas father, Mahant Ram, at village Sarahan. Smt Chunno PW 9, who is the sister of Smt. Bimla, was earlier married with Jalam and gave birth to a daughter at the house of Jalam Later, however, Chunno PW 9 fell apart from Jalam and started living at her fathers house at Sarahan, where her sister Bimla PW 4 and her brother-in-law, Parkash Chand deceased were also residing, Chunno PW 9 was said to have developed illicit intimacy with deceased Parkash Chand. It is the further case of the prosecution that Smt. Chunno PW 9 conceived a child from the loins of Parkash Chand In the meanwhile, Chunno PW 9 came to the house of accused Chain Lal at village Rundla and started living there as his wife- Chunno PW 9 was said to have produced a male child in the house of Chain Lal accused which was allegedly conceived by her with Prakash Chand deceased Baldev PW 3 and Chamno alias Chaman Singh PW 5 are the brothers of Chain Lal accused, Sikho PW 2 is the cousin brother of Chain Lal accused. All these witnesses were residing in village Rundla, where Chain Lal accused used to reside. 2-A. The further case of the prosecution was that Parkash Chand deceased used to sell Maniari goods (general goods) as a hawker by moving from village to village. Chain Lal accused was nourishing a grouse against Parkash Chand deceased because of the latters visits to Chunno PW 9 at the house of the accused, though these facts are not admitted by the accused. It is the further case of the prosecution that the accused was suspecting that Chunno PW 9 was continuing her illicit relations with Parkash Chand deceased. On June 9, 1989 Parkash Chand deceased came to village Rundla in the company of the accused at about 4 p. m. and they were seen together at village Masroond at about 2 or 2.30 p. m. by Sikhnoo PW 8. Bag Ex P-1 was being carried by Parkash Chand deceased at that time. Cbamno PW 5 also saw Parkash Chand and Chain Lai accused going towards village Rundla at about 4 p. m. on that day. The further prosecution case is that the accused reached at village Rundla in the company of the deceased at about 4 p m. and they remained for some time with Chunno PW 9. Sikho PW 2 also saw them there. From the house of the accused both of them went towards village Salori at about 6 P. M. The accused is said to have carried Darat Ex, P-2 with him on the pretext that he was to collect fodder for the animals, Tek Chand FW 7 noticed the deceased in the company of the accused at village Salori at about the evening time. Thereafter the deceased was claimed to have not been seen alive by any one. 3. The further case of the prosecution is that at about 9 p. m. on June 9, 1989, Baldev PW 3 who was irrigating his vegetable plaints in the field, heard some shrieks from the village side. On this Baldev PW 3 went towards his house in village Rundla but he met Chamno PW 5 on the way. Chamno PW 5 assured Baldev FW 3 regarding the welfare of the wife and daughter of Baldev and on the assurance, Baldev returned back to his field for irrigating his vegetable plants. On this Baldev PW 3 went towards his house in village Rundla but he met Chamno PW 5 on the way. Chamno PW 5 assured Baldev FW 3 regarding the welfare of the wife and daughter of Baldev and on the assurance, Baldev returned back to his field for irrigating his vegetable plants. He returned to his house at about 10 p m and went to enquire from Sikho PW 2 and Chain Lai accused if they also had heard any cries or shrieks at about 9. p. m. Sikho PW 2 and the accused denied of having heard any shrieks in the village. 4. It is the further case of the prosecution that Chamno PW 5 used to live in the house of the accused whereas he used to take his meals in the house of Baldev PW 3. On June 9, 1989 at about 10 p. m, Chamno PW 5 vent to the house of the accused, as usual, for sleeping, the accused took this witness to his cow shed. In the cow shed the accused hugged Chamno and asked him if he was his real brother or not On Chamnos assurance that he was the real brother of the accused, the accused asked this witness if he was to share the wrong committed by the accused or not. On Chamnos assurance, the accused disclosed that he had killed Parkash Chand and this witness should assist him in burying the dead body of Parkash Chand. Chamno PW 5S however, did not accede to this request of the accused and came back to the house for sleeping. The accused also came back. On June 10, 1989 when it was still dark, the accused awoke Chamno PW 5 and again asked him to help him in burying the dead body of Parkash Chand. At this time the witness agreed and he accompanied the accused to Sintawala Nallah, at a little distance from the village. According to this witness, the dead body of Parkash Chard was Vying in Sintawala Nallah and accused dragged the body of Parkash Chand to a pit in the Nallah and kept the dead body there and hag Ex P-l was also kept with the dead body of Parkash Chand. According to this witness, the dead body of Parkash Chard was Vying in Sintawala Nallah and accused dragged the body of Parkash Chand to a pit in the Nallah and kept the dead body there and hag Ex P-l was also kept with the dead body of Parkash Chand. Thereafter the body was covered with freshly dug earth and the pit was made like a grave and the pit was later covered with some stones and bushes. Darat Ex. P-2 and Gainti Ex P-3 (an iron implement used for digging), which were carried by the accused from his house were used by the accused in burying the dead body of the deceased. 3. It is further the case of the prosecution that in the evening of June 9, 1989 when Chain Lal accused had returned alone to his house at about 9 p m Smt Chunno PW 9 enquired from him regarding whereabouts of Parkash Chand deceased The accused tried to put off by saying that the deceased had gone to his house, bat on further insistence by this witness, the accused disclosed to her that he had caused the death of Parkash Chand (uska kalyan kar diya hai). In the morning of June 10, 1989 at about 5 or 5 30 "a m. Sikho PW 2 went to his filed out side the village. He noticed some marks of scuffle in his field and blood was also lying there. On this, Sikho PW 2 called Bhilo. Bhilo and Baldev PW 3 came there and also noticed marks of scuffle and blood in the field of Slkbo PW 2 They also noticed some dragging marks which had originated from the place where the scuffle appeared to have taken place and these dragging marks were visible upto Sintawala Nallah, On seeing these marks of scuffle, blood and dragging, Sikho PW 24 Baldev PW 3 and Bhilo went towards the Nallah and noticed a freshly dug pit which was covered with earth, stones and bushes, Sikho PW 2 went to Pradhan Gram Panchayat, Amar Singh PW 1 Amar Singh PW 1 came with them and saw for himself the marks of scuffle, dragging and grave like pit covered under the bushes and stones. Amar Singh PW I also made some enquiries from the villagers who bad gathered there and thereafter left for Chamba for informing the police. Amar Singh PW I also made some enquiries from the villagers who bad gathered there and thereafter left for Chamba for informing the police. At Police Station Chamba, Amar Singh PW 1 presented an application Ex. PA before Inspector Kashmir Singh PW 17 at about 3 p. m The Inspector, Kashmir Singh PW 17 alongwith some police officers accompanied Amar Singh PW I and came to village Rundla. Kashmir Singh PW 17 made some enquiries from the villagers at Rundla. After making enquiries this witness forwarded the application Ex. PA with his endorsement Ex PT to police station Chamba for registration of the case. On this formal F. I. R. Ex PR under sections 302/201, I. P. C, was recorded at Police Station Chamba on June 10, 1989 at 10 p. m. 6. According to the prosecution the dead body had been recovered from a pit situated near Sintawala Nallaii by Inspector Kashmir Singh PW 17 on June 11, 1989 after arrival of the Deputy Superintendent of Police Balbir Singh, on the spot, and the body was identified by Smt. Bimla PW 4 wife and Mahant Ram father-in-law of the deceased. The dead body was got photographed from Shri Bhikho Ram PW 14, who had also prepared photographs Exs. PN, PO, PP and PQ on the spot, An inquest report Ex PC was prepared on the dead body. The bag Ex. P-l which was found in the pit with the dead body of Parkash Chand was seized through seizure memo. Ex. PB After conducting inquest on the dead body, it was sent to District Hospital for postmortem examination. 7. Accused Chain Lal who was present on the spot, was arrested by Kashmir Singh PW 17 on June 11, 1989. The accused is alleged to have made disclosure statement in the presence of PW I Amar Singh and Hoshiara Rani The disclosure statement was recorded vide memo Ex. PD and signed by the accused in the presence of the witnesses. After making the above said disclosure statement, the accused led the police party and the witnesses to his cattle shed and got recovered Darat Ex P-2 and Gainti Ex. PD and signed by the accused in the presence of the witnesses. After making the above said disclosure statement, the accused led the police party and the witnesses to his cattle shed and got recovered Darat Ex P-2 and Gainti Ex. P-3 from a corner of his cattle shed where the same were lying concealed These articles were packed in separate cloth parcels and seized through memo Ex PF after sealing the same In pursuance of the disclosure statement Ex= PD the accused was also alleged to have led the police party and the witnesses to Khal Walla field and produced from there a plastic envelope Ex. P-4 which was lying concealed in a pit under the stones beneath a Kharak tree. The plastic envelope Ex P-4 was containing general goods Exs P-5 to P-20 It belonged to the deceased Parkash Chand and was available in his bag Ex. P-l when the deceased had visited the house of Chunno PW 9 on the evening of June 9, 1989 8. Dr. V. K. Pathak PW 6 of District Hospital Chamba, who conducted the atopsy on the dead body of Parkash Chand on June 12, 1989, noticed various injuries on the person of Parkash Chand as described by him in his postmortem examination report Ex. PK. In the opinion of Dr Pathak, the cause of death of Parkash Chand was head injury, fracture of skull, intracranial bleeding, leading to shock and death. Dr. Pathak also attributed death of the deceased on account of strangulation, asphyxia, fracture hyoid bone, leading to shock and death The fracture of cervical vertibra 3rd and 4th and spinal cord injury noticed on the body of the deceased also led to shock and death as per the opinion of the doctor. All these injuries opined by Dr. Pathak were ante-mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death singly or cumulatively in the ordinary course of nature. The death of Parkash Chand was said to be instantaneous which could have taken place about 48 to 72 hours before the postmortem examination. 9. All these injuries opined by Dr. Pathak were ante-mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death singly or cumulatively in the ordinary course of nature. The death of Parkash Chand was said to be instantaneous which could have taken place about 48 to 72 hours before the postmortem examination. 9. Some blood-stained earth gathered from the place of the alleged scuffle and the clothes of the deceased were sent to the Chemical Examiner for analysis and the same were found to be having blood-stains but the origin of the blood could not be detected by the Serologist because of disintegration and quantity being not sufficient for test, 10. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was framed against the accused The accused denied the charges against him and claimed to be tried, 11. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also scrutinised the evidence and other relevant record to know if the allegations of the prosecution against the accused are legally proved, Admittedly, there is no direct evidence to connect the appellant with the crime in question and the prosecution has relied upon the circumstantial evidence. 12. The trial Court based the appellants guilt on the following circumstances 1. The appellant and the deceased were last seen together in the evening of June 9, 1989. 2 The appellant had made extra-judicial confession to Chunno PW 9, Chamno PW 5 Baldev PW 3 and Sikho PW 2. 3. The dead body of the deceased had been disposed of by the accused by burying it in a pit in Sintawala Nallah. 4. That the accused was having the motive to kill the deceased because the accused had suspicion about the intimacy of the deceased with Chunno PW 9, wife of the accused, 5. The recovery of Drat Ex. P-2 and Gainti Ex. P-3 at the instance of the accused in pursuance of his disclosure statement. 6. The recovery of Maniari goods Ex P-5 to P-20 belonging to the deceased in pursuance to the disclosure statement Ex, PD, made by the accused. 7. The accused having denied the proved facts against him. 13. The recovery of Drat Ex. P-2 and Gainti Ex. P-3 at the instance of the accused in pursuance of his disclosure statement. 6. The recovery of Maniari goods Ex P-5 to P-20 belonging to the deceased in pursuance to the disclosure statement Ex, PD, made by the accused. 7. The accused having denied the proved facts against him. 13. The question arises whether these circumstances in law justify the conclusion of the trial Court with regard to the appellants guilt The legal position with respect to the sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence for sustaining criminal conviction is well settled The circumstances established on the record according to the law of evidence must be consistent only with the guilt of the accused and wholly inconsistent with his innocence- The chain of evidence furnished by those circumstances must be complete and leave no reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with his innocence. If the circumstances proved in the case are consistent with the innocence of the accused but not with his guilt, then the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt When it is held that a certain fact is proved, the question arises whether that fact leads to an inference of guilt of the accused person or not, and in dealing with this aspect of the problem the doctrine of benefit of doubt would apply and an inference of guilt can be drawn only if the proved fact is wholly inconsistent with the innocence of the accused and is consistent only with his guilt. 14. Now the circumstantial evidence in the present case has to be considered in the light of the legal position enunciated above. 15. It cannot be disputed in the present case that Parkash Chand had died a homicidal death. The body of Parkash Chand was exhumed on June 11, 1989 from a pit near Sintawala Nallah covered with freshly dug earth, stones and bushes. On this aspect the statements of Inspector Kashmir Singh PW 17, Amar Singh PW I and Simla PW 4 are not disputed by the accused. Farther, Dr. V. K. Pathak PW 6 who had conducted the postmortem examination of the body of the deceased on June 12, 1989 noticed multiple injuries as aforementioned, on the person of Parkash Chand, as per the opinion Ex. PK given by Dr. Farther, Dr. V. K. Pathak PW 6 who had conducted the postmortem examination of the body of the deceased on June 12, 1989 noticed multiple injuries as aforementioned, on the person of Parkash Chand, as per the opinion Ex. PK given by Dr. Pathak subsequently on enquiry by the Investigating Officer, that these injuries could be caused with the blunt side of Darat Ex. P-2. The nature and extent and location of the injuries found on the body of Parkash Chand leave no manner of doubt that Parkash Chand was killed by some human agency. This conclusion is further fortified from the fact that the dead body of Parkash Chand was lying buried in a pit which was covered with fresh earth, stones and bushes which process could have been done only by some human being. In fact the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has also not disputed before us tie prosecution case to this extent. 16. The first circumstance used against the appellant by the trial court is that the appellant was last seen in the company of Parkash Chand on 9-6-1989. According to the prosecution, the death of Parkash Chand should have taken place around 9 p, m, on June 9, 1989, This fact has been tried to be established by the prosecution from the statement of Baldev PW 3 who was said to have heard some shrieks at that time when the witness was irrigating his vegetable plants in the field. Sent. Chunno PW 9 had also stated that the accused had returned home alone at about 9 PM. from village Salori where he had gone in the company of Parkash Chand deceased in the evening. The prosecution has tried to prove the first circumstance from the statement of Chamno PW 5 who has stated that the accused had asked him to assist him in burying the dead body of Parkash Chand at about 10 P M. The deceased and the accused were seen at village Salori by Tek Chand PW 7 when it had become dark in the evening As per the entry in the post-mortem examination report Ex PK., death of Parkash Chand was stated to have taken place at 3 P M on June 10, 1989. Further it is found in the inquest report Ex PC prepared on June 11, 1989, that Parkash Chand had come to the house of Chain Lal accused at village Rundla on June 10, 1989. Thus, these documents show that Parkash Chand could have been killed on June 10, 1989 and not on June 9, 1989 at 9 P. M. as tried to be established by the prosecution. Both these documents are contrary to the oral evidence adduced by the prosecution PW 2 Sikho has stated that about 10 or 1 i months ago he had lastly seen the deceased alive sitting with the accused in the courtyard of the accused at village Rundla at about 4 P M. This witness has failed to point out the date and day on which he had seen the deceased in the company of the accused. This witness in cross-examination stated that in the night of 10th June, Baldev PW 3 had informed him that he had visited the house of Chain Lai accused and Bhilo before coming to the house of this witness and Baldev PW 3 had told him at that time that Chain Lal and Bhilo had not heard about any noise on that day. The version of this witness shows that he is not aware about the date and day when the accused was seen by him in the company of Parkash Chand deceased. 17. PW 3 Baldev had stated that about ten months, before his statement was recorded by the trial Court, he was irrigating his vegetable plants in his field at about 9 P. M. when he heard some cries and shrieks emitting from his house side. The house of the accused is also nearby the house of this witness* He stated that he went towards his house and was worried about his wife and daughter who had gone to cattle shed. The house of the accused is also nearby the house of this witness* He stated that he went towards his house and was worried about his wife and daughter who had gone to cattle shed. In the way he was informed by Chamno PW 5, his real brother, that his wife and daughter were inside the house and they were all right, He came back to his field and continued with the irrigation work till 10 P. M. On return, at about 10 P. M. he went to the house of Sikho PW 2, then to the house of Chain Lal accused and thereafter to the house of Bhilo and asked them if they had heard any shrieks at about 9 P M. All of them replied in the negative and he came back to his house. The version of this witness also does not show that he had seen the deceased in the company of accused Chain Lal on 9-6-1989, This witness contradicts the version of PW 2 Sikho to the effect that PW 2 Sikho stated that it was on 10-6-1989 that Baldev PW 3 had heard some noise and shrieks, 18. PW 5 Chamno has stated that he had last seen Parkash Chand with his brother Chain Lal accused about 9 or 10 months, before his statement was recorded by the learned trial Court, He deposed that both the accused and the deceased were coming towards village Rundla on that day at about 4 P. M. when this witness was grazing his cattle in the jungle. He saw both of them coming from Masroond side. This witness further contradicts himself by saying that be had seen Parkash Chand last in the company of the accused on that day at about 7 P. M. when it was dark and he was bringing back his cattle to home. 19. PW 7 Tek Chand stated that he saw Parkash Chand for the last time at village Salori in the company of accused Chain Lal about ten months before his statement was recorded by the trial court, in the evening time He stated that he was not aware of the date when he saw the accused and the deceased together. He further deposed that both of them remained in his village for about an hour. He further deposed that both of them remained in his village for about an hour. The version of this witness also shows that he is also not aware of the date on which he saw the accused and the deceased together. 20. The next witness is PW 9 Chunno Devi, who is the wife of the accused. She stated that Parkash Chand deceased came to her house by about 10 months before her statement was recorded by the trial court at about 4 P. M, in the company of her husband. According to her version the deceased remained in her house for some time and thereafter left for village Salori in the company of the accused The accused came back at about 9 or 10 P. M in the night She enquired from the accused about the whereabouts of Parkash Chand deceased and she was told by the accused that Parkash Chand had gone to his house. In her cross-examination she bas admitted that when Parkash Chand had come to her house on that day in the evening, Sikho PW 2, cousin of Chain Lal accused, and Premo wife of Sikho, were present: in her house. The version of this witness also does not indicate about the date when Parkash Chand had come lastly to her house. 21. After giving our due consideration to the evidence in support of the first circumstances, we are not satisfied that the prosecution has proved this circumstance beyond reasonable doubt. 22. The second circumstance believed by the trial court is the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant to PW 2 Sikho, PW 3 Baldev, PW5 Chamno and PW 9 Chunno Devi. PW 9 Chunno Devi wife of the appellant stated that at about 9 or 10 P. M. when the appellant came back to her house all alone, then she had enquired about the whereabouts of Parkash Chand from her husband. The appellant had replied that Parkash Chand had gone to his house. She was not satisfied and on her insistence, the accused replied that he had killed Parkash Chand (uska kalyan kar dia hai). The statement made by the accused to his wife that "Uska kalyan kar dia hai" is in admissible under section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act and cannot be relied upon. 23. She was not satisfied and on her insistence, the accused replied that he had killed Parkash Chand (uska kalyan kar dia hai). The statement made by the accused to his wife that "Uska kalyan kar dia hai" is in admissible under section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act and cannot be relied upon. 23. PW 5 Chamno had stated that at about 10 P. M. he went to the house of the appellant for sleeping The appellant took him to the cattle shed and embraced him closely. The appellant wanted to make sure if this witness was willing to share the wrong committed by the appellant and on being assured by this witnesses, the accused is alleged to have disclosed to this witness that he bad killed Parkash Chand. He further deposed that the appellant wanted this witness to assist him in carrying the dead body of Parkash Chand. The version of this witness is not trustworthy. This witness is the real brother of the appellant and also of Baldev PW 3 and cousin of Sikho PW 2. He had not disclosed about the statement being made to him by the appellant at any time thereafter. The conduct of this witness casts suspicion about the statement made by the appellant to him. 24. PW 2 Sikho deposed that the appellant was asked about the whereabouts of his Saddu, that is, Parkash Chand, who had come to his house. The accused kept mum and later on he had disclosed to this witness in the presence of Bhilo mot examined and Baldev PW 3 that he had killed Parkash Chand and buried him in Sintawala Nallah The accused also threatened that he would kill the person who would inform the Pradhan about his. In this cross-examination he deposed that the appellant was called by the Pradhan through chowkidar in the morning, when Pradhan Amar Singh PW I reached at the spot. The appellant was also present at sintawala Nallah when the police arrived on the spot. This witness had a conversation with the appellant for about half an hour, when the appellant disclosed about the commission of murder. He further stated that this fact was told by him to Amar Singh Pradhan PW I in the evening when PW 1 Amar Singh had returned to the village with the police. This witness had a conversation with the appellant for about half an hour, when the appellant disclosed about the commission of murder. He further stated that this fact was told by him to Amar Singh Pradhan PW I in the evening when PW 1 Amar Singh had returned to the village with the police. However, Amar Singh PW 1 Pradhan had not stated anything about this fact in his statement He further deposed that this fact was not told by him to the police. He did not inform the villagers about Chain Lal having admitted before him, Bhilo and Baldev PW 3 about the commission of murder of Parkash Chand. There is no explanation rendered by him about the nondisclosure of this fact to any villager and to the police, although many persons had gathered at the spot when the police had reached there. 25. PW 3 Baldev deposed that when the accused was asked about the where about of his guest Parkash Chand, he informed that he had murdered Parkash Chand and buried him in the ground in the Nallah, The accused also warned against disclosing the fact of killing of Parkash Chand to any one. On question, the accused informed that Parkash Chand used to threat the accused and, therefore, he had killed Parkash Chand In his cross-examination he has stated that the accused was questioned regarding the whereabouts of Parkash Chand at about 10 A M after the departure of PW 1 Amar Singh Pradhan to Chamba Whereas PW 2 Sikho had stated that the fact of killing Parkash Chand by the appellant was disclosed to Sikho PW 2, Bhilo (not examined) and Baldev PW 3 at about 12 hours He further deposed that he had stated to the police that the appellant had informed him about the threats being held against him by Parkash Chand (confronted with the statement Ex. DA, wherein it is not so recorded). He further stated that Chain Lal was not handcuffed on that day when the police reached at the spot The appellant was also present with the other villagers at the place where the dead body was lying buried in the Nallah. Chamno PW 5 was also present there. DA, wherein it is not so recorded). He further stated that Chain Lal was not handcuffed on that day when the police reached at the spot The appellant was also present with the other villagers at the place where the dead body was lying buried in the Nallah. Chamno PW 5 was also present there. He further stated that he had informed this fact to some other members of the village who were present on the spot, but those persons were not examined as witnesses by the prosecution. 26. A confession is required to be proved like any other fact and the standard of proof is the same as of any other fact in a criminal trial. The value of evidence of a confession would depend upon the veracity of the witnesses before whom it is alleged to have been made. The position of the person to whom the confession is alleged to have been made in relation to the person making the confession, the time lapse between the occurrence and the making of confession and the circumstances in which the confession is alleged to have been made are some of the relevant factors which need to be taken into account while appreciating such evidence. Another surprising fact revealed by experience, and that should also be borne in mind, is that extra-judicial confessions are generally introduced in evidence only when there is no direct, cogent and reliable evidence available to connect the accused with the crime. In the instant case the alleged extra-judicial confession was not made immediately after the occurrence. The alleged extra-judicial confession,, considered in the background of the attending circumstances, clearly seems to be both not voluntary and true as also free from suspicion The evidence relied upon by the trial court to connect the appellant with the commission of the murder of Parkash Chand does not corroborate in material particulars with the confession made by the appellant. 27. The third circumstance which has been relied by the trial court against the accused is that the accused had disposed of the dead body of Parkash Chand by burying it in a pit in Sintawala Nallah. There is no dispute about the recovery of the dead body in Sintawala Nallah on 11-6-1989. PW 5 Chamno has stated that it was the appellant who had buried the dead body of Parkash Chand in the Nallah. There is no dispute about the recovery of the dead body in Sintawala Nallah on 11-6-1989. PW 5 Chamno has stated that it was the appellant who had buried the dead body of Parkash Chand in the Nallah. The statement of this witness suggests that the accused had requested him at about 10 P M. to assist him in burying the dead body of Parkash Chand. On his refusal the accused and this witness had slept in their house in the night. In the early hours of the next morning, when it was still dark, the appellant again asked him to assist him in burying the dead body. He has stated that he had accompanied the appellant to Sintawala Nallah end the dead body was buried in an old pit by the appellant. The dead body was covered with earth, some stones and bushes etc. by the appellant in the presence of this witness and after burying the dead body the appellant as well as this witness returned to the house of the appellant. In cross-examination this witness has admitted that he did not tell Sikho PW 2, Baldev PW 3 and Bhilo and other villagers about the fact that Parkash Chand was killed by the appellant and his dead body was buried by the appellant in the Nallah. According to this witness the appellant was carrying Darat Ex. P-2 and Gainti Ex. P-3 with him. We find it difficult to accept the version of this witness It is humanly impossible for one person to drag the dead body from the field to a Nallah which is at a distance of about 250 meters from the field, during the night time in a village and also to carry implements like Darat Ex. P-2 and Gainti Ex. P-3. If the dead body, as stated by this witness, was dragged on the ground in a Nallah for some distance before burying in the pit, some abrasion marks would have occurred in the body, but no such abrasion marks were found on the body of Parkash Chand by Dr. Pathak PW 6. The statement of this witness is not trust worthy. Pathak PW 6. The statement of this witness is not trust worthy. In case we accept this statement, this witness is himself responsible alongwith the appellant for commission of an offence under section 201, I. P. C. In any case, we are not impressed with the evidence of this witness in the circumstances individually and collectively taken together. As we have already stated, the witness is quite interested in order to fasten the liability on the appellant, as from his version he himself can also be said to be an accomplice alongwith the appellant in disposing of the dead body. 28. The fourth circumstance relied upon by the prosecution to connect the accused with the murder of Parkash Chand, that the accused was having a motive to kill the deceased, had not been relied upon by the trial court and according to us the approach of the trial court is correct. It is not in dispute that before coming to the house of the appellant, PW 9 Chunno Devi was earlier married with Jalam. It is also not disputed that Chunnos relations with Jalam got strained and she started living with her father at village Sarahan where PW 4 Bimla and deceased Parkash Chand were also living It is stated by PW 9 Chunno Devi and also by PW 4 Bimla wife of Parkash Chand deceased that Chunno developed illicit intimacy with Parkash Chand and conceived a child from him. According to the statements of these two witnesses, Chunno Devi was carrying a four months old pregnancy when she went to live with Chain Lal and she later delivered a child at the house of the appellant which was begotten by her from Parkash Chand deceased. The appellant in his statement under section 313, Cr P C. has admitted that Chunno Devi gave birth to a son at his house, but he has replied that he did not know the father of the child. The prosecution case further is that Parkash Chand used to keep visiting Chunno PW 9 at the house of the accused and the accused was, therefore, having a grouse against the deceased. The prosecution case further is that Parkash Chand used to keep visiting Chunno PW 9 at the house of the accused and the accused was, therefore, having a grouse against the deceased. It is for this reason that, according to the prosecution, the accused had killed Parkash Chand, The appellant has denied if Chunno PW 9 was having any illicit relations with Parkash Chand after Chunno PW 9 settled in his house and that the appellant was entertaining any suspicion against her on that score. The appellant has also denied that he was having any enmity with Parkash Chand on that account The evidence of the prosecution is not cogent and convincing on the point that the appellant was actually having some grouse against Parkash Chand There is no evidence to prove that the appellant was actually knowing about any such illicit intimacy between Parkash Chand and Chunno PW 9 subsequent to coming of Chunno Devi to his house. It is an admitted fact that the appellant bad accepted Chunno Devi and kept her at his house, despite knowing that Chunno Devi was earlier the wife of Jalam Singh and had given birth to a child there. It is also in evidence that Chunno Devi had again started living with Jalam Singh after the appellant was arrested in this case. The version of PW 9 Chunno Devi cannot be relied upon on account of her past conduct and known lack of virtue. 29. The 5th and 6th circumstances found against the appellant by the trial court in recording conviction are that the appellant while in policy custody made disclosure statement Ex, PD which led to the recovery of Darat Ex. 1-2, Gainti Ex P-3 and Maniari goods Ex. P-5 to P-20. According to the prosecution, the appellant, after his arrest on June 11, 1989, made disclosure statement to Inspector Kashmir Singh PW 17 in the presence of PW 1 Amar Singh Pradhan and Hoshiara (not examined), that he had kept concealed the Darat and Sainti in the corner of the cattle shed and be could get the same recovered. The appellant had produced Darat Ex. P-2 and Gainti Ex P-3 from a corner of his cattle shed. It is proved on record from the prosecution evidence that the cattle shed from where Darat Ex. P-2 and Gainti Ex. The appellant had produced Darat Ex. P-2 and Gainti Ex P-3 from a corner of his cattle shed. It is proved on record from the prosecution evidence that the cattle shed from where Darat Ex. P-2 and Gainti Ex. P-3 were recovered was not locked and could have been accessible to others also. PW 1 Amar Singh Pradhan has admitted in his cross-examination that the door of the cattle shed was closed but it was not locked. There were cattle also in the cow shed Darat Ex. P-2 and Gainti Ex. P-3 are like ordinary implements which are commonly available in the house. He has admitted that the disclosure statement was made by the accused before recovery of the dead body. He has further deposed that the discloure statement was made by the accused after he was interrogated for about 1-1/2 or 2 hours. Many other persons were also interrogated by the police on that day. He further deposed that the disclosure statement was made by the appellant in Hindi and in his own language. This witness further stated that the owners of the land go generally to their filed near the Kharak tree where from the recovery of Maniari articles Ex. P-5 to P-20 was effected. He further admitted that the Kharak tree from where the recovery was made is situate in an open field. We have perused the disclosure statement Ex PD and we find that the same was recorded in Hindi. The prosecution has failed to prove that Darat Ex. P-2 was-found to be stained with human blood nor the same was sent to the Chemical Examiner, We have not believed the statement of PW 9 Chunno Devi and PW 5 Chamno for the reasons recorded by us earlier. According to the version of PW 17 Kashmir Singh Inspector, the disclosure statement was made by the appellant around 5 P M. on June It, 1989 and the appellant was arrested on June 11, 1989 at about 5 P. M This witness further stated that the disclosure statement Ex. PD was made by the appellant after interrogation for 15 or 20 minutes and the same was recorded in the field of the appellant. The statement was made by the appellant in Hindi. He has further stated that there was only one door of the cattle shed of the appellant. But in the site plan Ex. PD was made by the appellant after interrogation for 15 or 20 minutes and the same was recorded in the field of the appellant. The statement was made by the appellant in Hindi. He has further stated that there was only one door of the cattle shed of the appellant. But in the site plan Ex. PB two doors were shown There was no lock affixed on the door The statements of PW 1 A mar Singh Pradhan and PW 17 Kashmir Singh contradict each other on material fact that the disclosure statement Ex PD was made by the appellant after the dead body was recovered and the accused was arrested PW 1 Amar Singh Pradhan stated that the disclosure statement was made by the appellant at about 11 or 11.30 A, M on June 11, 1989 and his disclosure statement was recorded before the recovery of the dead body. Whereas PW 17 Kashmir Singh Inspector stated that the accused was arrested on June 11, 1989 at 4 P.M. after the dead body was recovered from the Nallah. PW 17 also stated that the disclosure statement was made by the appellant in Hindi whereas Amar Singh Pradhan PW 1 stated that the same was made by the appellant in Hindi and in his local dialect. In these circumstances, it does not look safe to conclude that the appellant had made any disclosure statement or got recovered the articles Ex. P-2, P-3 and P-3 to P-20. 30. The 7th and the last circumstance is that the accused bad denied the proved facts against him. PW 1 Amar Singh Pradhan stated that Sikho PW 2 came to his house on June 10, 1989 at about 8 a, m and informed him that one dead-body was lying inside the ground near his house at a distance of about 500 meters and the dead-body was stated to be freshly buried in the ground. He further stated that the field of Sikho P W 2 was freshly ploughed, there were some marks of scuffle which were visible on the ground and some blood-stains were also there. He further stated that the field of Sikho P W 2 was freshly ploughed, there were some marks of scuffle which were visible on the ground and some blood-stains were also there. There were some marks of dragging on the ground which were leading to the Nallah known as Sintawala Nallah, The Nallah was dry and the distance between the field and the Nallah was 200 to 250 meters He further deposed that on asking the villagers the village people informed him that they heard some noise and sound at about n p. m- in the village He came to Chamba and made the application Ex. P-A to the Superintendent of Police, Chamba The police reached at the spot at about 6.30 p. m. On the next day, the police dug out the pit on the arrival of the Dy, Superintendent of Police and on digging the pit a human body was unearthed which was identified to be that of Prakash Chand by him and Bimla Devi PW 4. He further stated that the accused was present at the time of the taking out of the body of Prakash Chand. The appellant was interrogated by the police in his presence and in the presence of Hoshiara (not examined). This witness has admitted in cross-examination that in application Ex. P-A he had stated that Sikho PW 2 and Chamno PW 5 both had come to him. He further stated that the field where the scuffle appeared to have taken place was lying unsown, though it had been ploughed and that there were stones and bushes in Sintawala Nallah. He further deposed that he had enquired from Sikho PW 2 and Baldev PW 3 before informing the police whether any stranger had visited the village These witness had informed him that Parkash Chand resident of Sirmour had come there. This fact was not stated by him in the application Ex. P-A. According to the version of this witness, the police did not carry out any proceeding or enquiry on that day except for guarding the spot! Whereas, from the statement of PW 17 Kashmir Singh, Investigating Officer, statements of PW 2 Sikho and Bhilo (not produced) were recorded by him PW 17 Kashmir Singh further stated that PW 2 Sikho, Bhilo and PW 3 Baldev were interrogated by him on June 10, 1989. Whereas, from the statement of PW 17 Kashmir Singh, Investigating Officer, statements of PW 2 Sikho and Bhilo (not produced) were recorded by him PW 17 Kashmir Singh further stated that PW 2 Sikho, Bhilo and PW 3 Baldev were interrogated by him on June 10, 1989. The appellant was also present when the police reached the place of occurrence. This witness further stated that the appellant was with a constable who was present on the spot and was guarding the place and the appellant was called by him and enquiry was made from the appellant and other villagers in a general manner. 31. PW 2 Sikho stated that he had gone to the field known as Guharu’ in the morning and noticed the marks of some scuffle in his field. Blood was also lying there. He called Bhilo and Baldev PW 3. They found some marks of dragging from the place of scuffle towards the Nallah. This witness did not depose that he informed PW i Amar Singh that one dead-body was lying inside the ground, According to this witness he had sown maize crop in his field Guharu and the maize crop was 3 or 4 inches in bight at the time of the occurrence The statement of this witness stood contradicted with the statement of PW 1 Amar Singh to the effect that PW 1 Amar Singh had stated that the field was freshly ploughed. The statement of PW 2 Sikho further shows that it took about 2 or 230 hours to the police party in digging the pit in which the dead-body of Parkash Chand was buried. This witness further stated that he had not seen Parkash Chand deceased dealing in general goods before the occurrence had taken place, He has admitted that Chunno PW 9 is residing with Jalam since after the arrest of the appellant. 32. PW 3 Baldev also narrated the version as had been given by PW 2 Sikho He has admitted that Chamno PW 5 and Sikho PW 2 both had gone to the house of Amar Singh Pradhan PW 1. Chain Lal appellant and Chamno PW 5 were also present at the field of Sikho PW 2 when this witness alongwith PW 2 Sikho and Bhilo had gone to visit the Nallah. This witness has admitted that he is cultivating the land of Chain Lal appellant these days. Chain Lal appellant and Chamno PW 5 were also present at the field of Sikho PW 2 when this witness alongwith PW 2 Sikho and Bhilo had gone to visit the Nallah. This witness has admitted that he is cultivating the land of Chain Lal appellant these days. We have already discussed the statements of other witnesses earlier. 33. The plea of the appellant in his statement under section 313, Cr. P. C. is that Parkash Chand never visited his house on 9-6-1989, he had never gone to any place in the company of Parkash Chand on the said day. He has denied having made any disclosure statement to the police. His further defence is that his brother wanted to grab his land and house and he has been falsely implicated in this case at the instance of his brother. 34. It is well-settled proposition of law that when a case rests upon the circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy three tests : 1. The circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established. 2. Those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused, 3. The circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probabilities the crime was committed by the accused and non-else. The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused. The circumstantial evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence, We find that these three conditions which were necessary to be satisfied before the circumstantial evidence could be made the basis for conviction, have not been fulfilled. There might be suspicion against the accused, but it should not take the place of evidence. The evidence on record fell short of providing the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt We do not agree with the findings recorded by the trial Court that the prosecution has been able to prove all the facts and circumstances against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt 35. The evidence on record fell short of providing the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt We do not agree with the findings recorded by the trial Court that the prosecution has been able to prove all the facts and circumstances against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt 35. We accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant and acquit him of all the charges by giving him benefit of doubt. He shall be set free forthwith, if not required in any other case. The fine, if any paid by the appellant, be refunded to him. The case property be confiscated to the State. Appeal allowed.