JUDGMENT : 1. These two appeals arise out of the Judgment of the learned Additional Judge, Special Court, in Hoshiarpur. There are two appellants. Both of them were tried for offences punishable under sections 302 read with 34 and 201 I.P.C. for committing the murder of Vasdev, the deceased in their case. The case rested mainly on the retracted extra-judicial confession and on the recovery of the dead body. The trial Court accepted the prosecution case and convicted them for the said offences and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life and three m years' Rigorous Imprisonment respectively. 2. The first accused Ram preferred Criminal Appeal No.583/85 and the second accused Budhu has preferred Criminal Appeal No.612/85. 3. According to the prosecution both the accused were employed as agricultists under one Pal Singh, P.W.1. The deceased was married and had a wife and he used to live at the house U of Pal Singh in the village, while the two accused who were unmarried used to stay at the tube-well of Pal Singh. The deceased used to carry the meals for the two accused to the tube-well. On 7.8.1984 at about 9.P.M. the deceased took the meals for the two accused as usual but he did not return. On 8th morning the two accused went to the house of Pal Singh and they were found to be very nervous. Pal Singh questioned them and it is alleged that they confessed that the deceased was intoxicated and there was a verbal altercation and the two accused caught hold of the deceased by the throat and strangulated him to death. Thereafter they buried the dead body of the deceased in the abandoned old well and filled it up. Pal Singh took both the accused to the Police Station and produced them before the S.I. who interrogated them and at their instance the dead body was recovered and the inquest was held on the dead body and is it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 5, who conducted post-mortem, found bruises all over the neck and on an internal examination he found that muscles under the neck were congested and he opined that the death was due to strangulation. 4. The plea of the accused is one of denial. The doctor P.W. 5, who conducted post-mortem, found bruises all over the neck and on an internal examination he found that muscles under the neck were congested and he opined that the death was due to strangulation. 4. The plea of the accused is one of denial. They stated that they did not know anything about the occurrence and the deceased had illicit relations with the daughter of Pal Singh and 40 perhaps Pal Singh got the deceased murdered and filed the case against them. The motive of the murder, according to the prosecution, is stated to be that the deceased suspected that A 1 had on evil eye on his wife and he protested and there was an altercation and that both the accused committed the murder. 5. The trial Judge having observed that retracted extra judicial confession is a weak piece 45 of evidence, however, held that the same is corroborated by the recovery of the dead body at the instance of the accused and held that the prosecution case could be accepted and accordingly convicted the two appellants. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that both the accused have been working under Pal Singh for the last five or seven years and they have been demanding the wages due from him and, therefore, both went against him. His further submission is that the evidence of Pal Singh regarding the retracted extra judicial confession is highly artificial and at any rate is a weak piece of evidence and the recovery of the dead body by itself does not in any manner connect the accused with the murder. He also submitted that there is not an independent evidence in respect of the alleged recovery of the dead body and it is not possible that-somebody having committed the murder has burned the dead body. Having gone through the records and the evidence of the witnesses we find it difficult to accept evidence of Pal Singh regarding the alleged extra judicial confession. Regarding the same,' the prosecution case entirely rests on his evidence and we find it difficult to accept his evidence but the alleged extra judicial confession. Having gone through the records and the evidence of the witnesses we find it difficult to accept evidence of Pal Singh regarding the alleged extra judicial confession. Regarding the same,' the prosecution case entirely rests on his evidence and we find it difficult to accept his evidence but the alleged extra judicial confession. Once it is retracted it become very weak piece of evidence 'Regarding the recovery of the dead body, we do not find from the judgment of the trial Court that any independent witnesses have spoken about the recovery at the, instance of the accused. Reliance has been placed by the prosecution on the photographs to show that the accused were seen digging the dead body from the well at the time of the recovery. This can be explained away by saying that the two accused as labourers might have helped the Police to recover the dead body by digging. This by itself is not enough to establish that the place where the dead body is alleged to have been concealed was especially within the knowledge of the accused so as to connect them with the murder. The two circumstances relied upon by the prosecution, in our view, are insufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused. In result convictions and sentences are set aside and the appeals are allowed. If the accused are in jail they shall be set at liberty forthwith.