JUDGMENT Palok Basu and A. S. Tripathi, JJ. 1. THIS appeal has been filed by Kanti against the judgment and order dated 22.5.1979 passed by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Jalaun at Orai in S. T. No. 51 of 1978 convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 302, I.P.C., to imprisonment for life. 2. THE Charge against the appellant was that on 22.10.1975 sometime before noon the appellant had committed the murder of his wife Smt. Lal Kunwar described also as Lahuri Babu by intentionally and knowingly causing such injuries on her neck and other parts of the body by means of spade which were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause her death and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. In the instant case the only evidence against the appellant which has been relied upon by the learned Trial Judge is the so-called judicial confession said to have been made by the appellant before the Executive Magistrate namely Sri Suraj Bhan Srivastava, S. D. M. Orai examined as P.W. 6. The Trial Judge has not relied upon so-called extra judicial confession sought to have been proved by two witnesses namely P.W. 3. Beni Madho and P.W. 5 Sumer. Similarly P.W. 1 Dhani Ram the father of the appellant, who had gone to lodge the FIR, at police station concerned on 22.10.1975 at 5.30 p.m. has turned hostile and therefore, rightly not relied upon by the Trial Judge. 3. P.W. 7 Shyam Behari Shukla is the Station Officer and in his presence the first information report was allegedly lodged by P.W. 1 Dhani Ram. He immediately got the case registered through Ram Asrey Dixit Head Moharrir vide General Diary Entry No. 18. He allegedly recorded the statement of the Head Moharrir thereafter and performed the inquest on the dead body and also prepared photo nash and challan nash and the relevant letter for getting postmortem examination was written whereafter he handed over the dead body to the constables Bhagwati Prasad and Jitendra Kumar. The documents have been proved as Exts. Ka-6 to Ka-9. Then he prepared a site plan and recovered from the spot simple earth and blood stained earth and some clothes as also pieces of broomestic. It is said that tea-shirt was recovered from the place of occurrence and it was also kept under sealed cover. 4. The documents have been proved as Exts. Ka-6 to Ka-9. Then he prepared a site plan and recovered from the spot simple earth and blood stained earth and some clothes as also pieces of broomestic. It is said that tea-shirt was recovered from the place of occurrence and it was also kept under sealed cover. 4. FURTHER the case of the prosecution is that the appellant had all by himself surrendered in the court on 31.10.1975. The Investigating Officer had sent the report regarding getting the recovered articles examined by the Chemical Examiner. It may be mentioned here that there is no report from the chemical examiner to form view of the presence of the blood on the articles said to have been recovered at the spot. It is strange that in such matters the investigating agency relied upon the solitary testimony of the Investigating Officer about the said recovery of articles. It has been emphasised over and over again that reports of the chemical examiner and serologlst report must be produced. The officials concerned will do well to take note of this repeated observations so that the accused do not go un-punished and result in consequent forced acquittal for criminals. To complete chronology of the prosecution case, the statement of the appellant is said to have been recorded on 21.12.1975 and at the same time the I. O. is said to have forwarded a report to the Magistrate for getting the confession of the appellant recorded. After forwarding this report the Investigating Officer filed a charge-sheet against the appellant proved as Ext. Ka-14. It Is said that the actual recording of the judicial confession before the Magistrate, Orai. (P. W. 6) was done on 5.1.1976. 5. THERE is inherent contradiction in the statements of two witnesses namely P.W. 3 Bhagwati Prasad and P.W. 5 Sumer regarding the contents of the statements of the appellant made before them on the one hand, and, the statement of the appellant said to have been made before the P.W. 6 the S. D. M. While in the extra judicial confession the prosecution has led evidence to show that the appellant had said that he has committed the murder of his wife because she was making inviting gestures towards the rich people. But, on the other hand, the appellant has said before S. D. M. in his confessional statement that he has murdered his wife because she poured a glass of milk on the ground and on questioning by the appellant she showed anger and said that if the appellant was the real son of his real father he must finish her and on getting instigated the appellant found a spade. picked it up and hit on the neck and then repeated blows to Be sure that she died as he was apprehensive of being prosecuted if she was left alive. 6. SRI R. K. Srivastava learned counsel for the appellant argued that the aforesaid contradiction makes it impossible for the court to believe which of the two versions is correct. Km. N. A. Moonis learned A. G. A. said that since the Trial Judge did not place reliance on the extra judicial confession for the purposes of recording conviction, this court should also refrain from referring to the same evidence for the contradiction. We are, in the facts and circumstances of the case, unable to persuade ourselves to be in agreement with the argument of the State which is too far to be accepted. It is true that the Trial Judge has not placed reliance on the extra judicial confession but at the same time he has in so many words said that he would not be doubting the statement of the two witnesses namely P.W. 3 Beni Madho and P.W 5 Sumer but he has refrained from using extra judicial confession for the reasons that, the exact words uttered by the appellant have not fallen from the lips of the two witnesses. A very serious criticism has been advanced about the voluntariness of the confessional statement in the sense that while it is admitted that the appellant was already granted bail on Ms having surrendered before the court on 31.10.1975 yet the appellant was carried to the court of the Magistrate by the police under custody on 5.1.1976 when the confessional statement was recorded by the Magistrate. The factual basis of this argument is that though the incident is said to have happened on 22.2.1975 the appellant has admittedly surrendered on 31.10.75 voluntarily before the Judicial Magistrate's Court at Jalaun. Soon thereafter, again admittedly, he was granted ball and consequently released. The factual basis of this argument is that though the incident is said to have happened on 22.2.1975 the appellant has admittedly surrendered on 31.10.75 voluntarily before the Judicial Magistrate's Court at Jalaun. Soon thereafter, again admittedly, he was granted ball and consequently released. In the cross-examination, P.W. 6, Sri Suraj Bhan Srivastava the S. D. M., has admitted that (translation by Court) "he was brought by the Station Officer, Jalaun and produced before me along with the report. The appellant had been brought by the police upto my court. He must have been in police custody. At the time of recording his statement, he was not in custody." 7. ON the aforesaid matrix the learned counsel for the appellant argued that this confessional statement was obviously not voluntary in nature. 8. KM. N. A. Moonis learned A. G. A. wanted to emphasise that since inside the court room the appellant was no more in custody, the voluntariness of the confessional statement was obviously there. To counter the aforesaid argument of the learned A. G. A., the following statement of the Magistrate has been rightly relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant:- "I had not given 24 hours time to Kanti to freshen himself. I was busy in my work when the police had brought him and, therefore, I took his statement after about half an hour." From the aforesaid evidence it is apparent that though on bail, the Station Officer of the police station concerned had brought the: appellant in custody upto the court room of the S. D. M. It is impossible to conceive any situation where a man on bail can be brought in custody till outside the court room with only purpose of getting his confessional statement recorded by the Magistrate. This is indicative of exerting authority if not coercing, or forcing a confession it not extracting, and confining a man on ball for the purposes of getting recorded a confession, if not arresting him physically. In the circumstances, the confessional statement loses the basic character of being voluntarily one and has thus to be disregarded completely. There is yet another circumstance which indicates that all is not well with the confessional statement. At no point of time has the Magistrate made any note in the confessional statement that it was recorded on his dictation by the Reader of his Court. There is yet another circumstance which indicates that all is not well with the confessional statement. At no point of time has the Magistrate made any note in the confessional statement that it was recorded on his dictation by the Reader of his Court. In the statement before the Trial Judge the Magistrate admits that Section 281, Cr. P.C., may be applicable though in terms its applicability is confined to court of Metropolitan Magistrate. The fact, however, remains that there was no seal put by him below the signature nor any noting exists on the said document about it having been recorded by his Reader on his dictation. This may be yet another reason why it may be presumed that the Magistrate has not followed the mandate of Section 281, Cr. P.C., read with Section 164, Cr. P.C., in pith and substance. For this added reason, the confessional statement has to be kept out of the purview. The net result of the scrutiny of the evidence as indicated above is that there is vital contradiction between the contents of the extra judicial confession and the confession thereby distracting the truthfulness in the confession, the appellant being on bail was produced in custody before the Magistrate thereby erasing the voluntariness of the confession, and, the necessary endorsement about dictation to the Reader having not been made on the document itself thereby complete disregard has been shown to the provision in Section 164/281, Cr. P.C. There being no other evidence on the record of connecting the appellant with the crime, though there are reasons for suspecting that the appellant may have really committed the murder, benefit of doubt has to be extended to the appellant. 9. IN view of the aforesaid discussion the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The appellant is on bail. He need not surrender to his bail bonds which are discharged. Appeal allowed.