S.L.Saraf, J- This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 24.6.91 passed by the Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh and Tinsukia in Sessions Case No.83 (D)/86 convicting the appellant under section 302 IPC, sentencing him thereunder to suffer RI for life and pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to RI for one year. 2. The facts in brief is that, on 22.6.85 a dead body was found at the paddy field of one Sitaram Sautal and accordingly he reported the matter to the headman of the area who lodged an FIR to the Chabua Police Station on the same day. It was alleged that the dead body bore several cut injuries in her neck and face. The injuries were caused by dao blow and nobody could identify the said dead body. In view of the same, it appears that the Dibrugarh PS was also notified relating to the finding of the dead body. It is alleged by PW 11 Second Officer, Chabua PS in his evidence that on 27.6.85 he received a message from Namrup PS that from Namrup one Anil Gogoi, his wife Menka Gogoi and their two years old daughter were missing. PW 11 states in his deposition that he sent a message to Namrup OC asking Menka's relatives to come to Chabua PS. On arrival at Chabua PS, they were shown few photographs of deceased and on the basis of those photographs, the said relatives recognised the dead body as that of Menka. On the basis of the FIR and after recording the statements, the case considered to be under section 3 02 of the IPC. So, the case being triable by the Sessions Judge only and was committed to the Sessions Court. Learned Sessions Judge examined as many as 12 witnesses 3. PW 1 is the Headman who received the information that a dead body of a woman was lying on the paddy field of Sitaram Sautal. He went to the place of occurrence and found that a female dead body was lying with cut injuries on her neck and face in the field. The people of the village could not identify the dead body. Certain items were seized which were lying near the dead body, a pair of sandals and a roll of khaki colour paper. He went to the place of occurrence and found that a female dead body was lying with cut injuries on her neck and face in the field. The people of the village could not identify the dead body. Certain items were seized which were lying near the dead body, a pair of sandals and a roll of khaki colour paper. PW 2 is the person who was the owner of the field and he found the dead body and later reported to the village Headman who lodged the written FIR with the Police Station Chabua. PW 5 is the relation of deceased Menka Gogoi. He has given evidence that deceased Menka was the wife of the accused. His evidence was that he did not see the dead body. The OC, Chabua PS showed him the photograph from which he could identify the dead body as that of Menka, who was the wife of the accused Anil Gogoi. According to him, Menka disappeared in the year, 1985 and on 20.6.85 one Suala went to his residence and stated that accused Anil, his wife Menka and her daughter were missing. On the next day, PW 5 and Puwali met accused Anil Gogoi who stated that Menka was staying at Tinsukia with her relatives. On hearing this, they along with Anil went to Tinsukia in a bus. When they reached Bardubi, in between Chabua and Tinsukia, the bus had come to a halt for a moment, they found accused Anil got down there and the bus proceeded towards Tinsukia. Thereafter, they returned to Namrup. They all spent the night at his residence. On 28.6.85 Puwali Gogoi lodged an ejahar with Namrup PS about the disappearance of Menka and her daughter Ritumani. It is alleged that on the same day, the Chabua PS informed Dharmeswar the father of Menka at Namrup that a dead body of woman had been found at Chabua. On hearing information, PW 5, accompained by Dharmeswar, Lakheswar Gogoi, Puniram went to Chabua PS and identified the dead body from the photograph shown and a handkerchief which was found near the dead body. In cross examination, he however told that he has no personal knowledge about the killing of Menka, nor did he see the dead body. He failed to recognise the sandals. In cross examination, he however told that he has no personal knowledge about the killing of Menka, nor did he see the dead body. He failed to recognise the sandals. PW 6 Reba Gogoi who accompained Dharmeswar and others to Chabua PS and identified the dead body on the basis of photograph, but she specifically stated that no other items or articles were shown to them by the OC, Chabua PS. This evidence is contrary to what PW 5 stated relating to the other items alleged to have been seized and shown by the police. Puniram also given evidence that dead body was not shown to him. PW 11 who was Second Officer at Chabua PS deposed that a female dead body was found at the village field. He took photograph of the deceased and seized a pair of sandals, khaki colour paper and a handkerchief and later he informed the Dibrugarh PS that nobody could identify the dead body at the place of occurrence. Thereafter, the dead body was sent to Dibrugarh Medical College Hospital for autopsy. On 27.6.85, he received a message from Namrup PS that from Namrup one Anil Gogoi (accused) his wife Menka and their two years old daughter were missing. This message if recorded, however was not disclosed during the deposition. He then sent a message back to the Namrup OC that Menka's relative may be sent to Chabua PS. On 29.6.85, Dharmeswar, the father of the deceased Menka accompained by others came to Chabua PS. They were shown the photograph of the deceased and the seized articles. On seeing the photograph, Dharmeswar identified the deceased as his daughter Menka. On 30.6.85 the said officer (PW 11) received an information that accused Anil Gogoi was arrested by Jaipur Police, and soon thereafter Jaipur Police handed over the accused along with the case diary containing the interrogation to him. Then only they could learn that Anil Gogoi killed the Menka Gogoi and according to him he further learnt that one Hema Gogoi was also involved in the murder of Menka. According to him, accused Anil Gogoi confessed that he along with Hema Gogoi killed his wife Menka with a dao which was later thrown into a nearby ditch. Subsequently, the dao was seized on being shown by the accused. According to him, accused Anil Gogoi confessed that he along with Hema Gogoi killed his wife Menka with a dao which was later thrown into a nearby ditch. Subsequently, the dao was seized on being shown by the accused. From the reading of the above depositions of the various witnesses before the Sessions Court, it nowhere appears that there was any eye witness of the killing of the deceased Menka. Nobody had seen the dead body. Only they could identify the dead body on the basis of photograph which were shown to them by the OC of Chabua PS. Hence, prosecution could not establish and prove the killing of Menka Gogoi or the identification. Admittedly, Menka Gogoi had disappeared, and except the identification on the basis of photographs, nobody could say that Menka has been killed. It is very strange that two witnesses who were most relevant for the entire proceedings i.e. father and the sister of Menka were not produced at the time of trial. Dharmeswar was the father-in-law of the accused and had gone to Chabua PS and also appeared to have signed the seizure list and also he has been running around from Namrup PS to Chabua PS, but for reasons best known to the prosecution, the prosecution did not produce the said witness at the trial. Puwali Gogoi is another daughter of Dharmeswar, who was supposed to have lodged an ejahar to Namrup PS. She has also not been produced as witness before the Sessions Court. None of the witnesses produced prove anything as to the nexus of Anil Gogoi with the dead body. No evidence or deposition by anybody could relate the accused with the death of Menka. It appears that subsequently a confessional statement was given by the accused before the Judicial Magistrate. In the confessional statement Anil Gogoi admits that in company with Hema Gogoi he has committed murder of his wife Menka with a dao at Panitola Tea Estate. According to his confessional statement, it was Hema Gogoi who dealt a cutting dao blow on Menka and thereafter 2 dao blows were dealt with by him to Menka on her neck. According to his statement, before the death of his wife, the said very dao was purchased from Dibrugarh at a price of Rs.20/- and with the help of the same they had caused the injury. According to his statement, before the death of his wife, the said very dao was purchased from Dibrugarh at a price of Rs.20/- and with the help of the same they had caused the injury. Post mortem report shows 3 injuries on her body i.e. 2 on her neck and one in the middle of the abdomen. According to post mortem report, death is due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of incised wounds on the neck, and heavy sharp cutting weapon was used to cause the injuries. According to the police only after the confessional statement of the accused, they on being shown by the accused, recovered the dao from a nearby ditch at the place of occurrence. This itself appears to be very weak evidence regardingthe finding of a dao. The police are supposed to have searched the place of occurrence and had found only sandals, handkerchief and a piece of paper and nothing else. Now on the strength of the confessional statement, the police has made recovery of a dao. Identification of dao by PW 3 is not trustworthy as he sold a new dao, but he identifies a rusted-dao. No cash memo or copies of the same was disclosed. It was a common dao which is readily available with almost everybody in villages. As such, hardly any reliance can be placed on such evidence. There is no sign of blood stain on the dao, least of human blood. The dao was not sent to the Forensic Laboratory for test either. So, this Court rejects the nexus of the alleged dao with the murder of the accused. 4. On the other hand the father of the deceased was not produced before the Court to give evidence nor Puwali Gogoi who was supposed to have lodged the FIR in Namrup Police Station was brought as witness in the case. According to us, these two were vital witnesses who could have identified the deceased properly and would have thrown better light on the facts of the case were deliberately withheld. There are other serious infirmities in the deposition of PW 5 who alleged that on 20th June, one Suala went to his residence and said that 'what' the accused Anil had done to his wife and minor daughter. There are other serious infirmities in the deposition of PW 5 who alleged that on 20th June, one Suala went to his residence and said that 'what' the accused Anil had done to his wife and minor daughter. However, from the evidence of the PW 5 himself it appears that Puwali Gogoi has lodged the FIR only on 28.6.85. Both the versions cannot be true. According to the FIR, it was only 22nd June, 1985 in the morning the dead body was found which was done away with only on 21st/22nd night. Besides, there are material contradiction in the depositions of various witnesses before the trial Court and on the basis of the said depositions, the killing of the deceased Menka cannot be traced to Anil Gogoi. 5. PW 5 spoke about suspicious behaviour of the accused. As to the behaviour of the accused is concerned, it is a very difficult proposition. People coming from different state behave in different way under different circumstances. It is impossible to say as to how a person coming from a particular background would behave under a particular circumstances. It is for the psychologist to fathom the inner working of the mind of a particular person suffering from different stress and strain. It is well-nigh impossible for a layman to speak about the behaviour of a person and on the basis thereof to say that a person is guilty of an offeree. It requires a highly qualified specialist to depose regarding the same. As such, we hold that the behaviour of a person can not be decisive factor in drawing an inference as to the guilt of a person unless an expart Psychologist offers an opinion regarding the same. Even the independent evidence are required to be present pointing to the guilt of the accused. Otherwise, the evidence remain in the world of conjectures and surmises and not connected with facts and possibilities. There are no other circumstantial evidence to treat the accused as part of the killer group. Hema Gogoi has already been released by the trial Court. Accused Anil Gogoi has been sentenced being found guilty of murder of his wife under section 302 IPC and convicted for life imprisonment. 6. In his confessional statement, accused stated that he along with Hema Gogoi committed the murder. Hema Gogoi has already been released by the trial Court. Accused Anil Gogoi has been sentenced being found guilty of murder of his wife under section 302 IPC and convicted for life imprisonment. 6. In his confessional statement, accused stated that he along with Hema Gogoi committed the murder. According to him it was Hema Gogoi who dealt the first dao blow and thereafter he dealt two dao blows on her neck. In his confessional statement he stated that after hitting her, they (the accused and the said Hema Gogoi) threw the dao at the place of crime, lateron the same was shown to the police. The said statement had been subsequently retracted at the time of examination under section 313 CrPC. In his statement he denies that police recovered the dao being shown by him. He also denies that he had killed his wife. The Supreme Court in Kashmira Singh vs. State of MP reported in AIR 1952 SC 159 has observed as follows : “The confession of an accused person is not an evidence in the ordinary sense of the term of defined in section 3. It cannot be made the foundation of a conviction and can only be used in support of other evidence. The proper way is, first, to marshal the evidence against the accused excluding the confession altogether from consideration and see whether, if it is believed a conviction could safely be based on it. If is capable of belief independently of the confession, then of course it is not necessary to call the confession in aid. But cases may arise where the Judge is not prepared to act on the other evidence as it stands even though, if believed, it would be sufficient to sustain a conviction. In such an event the Judge may call in aid the confession and use it to lend assurance to the other evidence and thus fortify himself in believing what without the aid of the confession be would not be prepared to accept.” 7. The aforesaid observation has been quoted by Supreme Court in its latest judgment Chandra Kant Chimanlal Desai vs. State of Gujrat, reported in (1992) 1 SCC 473 . The aforesaid observation has been quoted by Supreme Court in its latest judgment Chandra Kant Chimanlal Desai vs. State of Gujrat, reported in (1992) 1 SCC 473 . It is held that one cannot rely on the confession alone to the find a person guilty of an offence unless other evidence are present, which independently or near independently can held a person guilty of an offence. The confession can only be in aid to the available evidence. But confession cannot be treated as the base document around which the rest of the evidence would circle. 8. The Supreme Court in Union of India & others vs. S.Brar, reported in (1993) 1 SCC 176 at 180 relying on a large number of cases held that confession as such is of no value, particularly because it is retracted, except as a reassurance when reliable evidence has been adduced on behalf of the prosecution. In the instant case, there are no eye witnesses, nobody knowing the deceased has seen the dead body, the photographer who has taken photograph of the dead body has given no evidence nor anybody has given any evidence relating to the type, nature and angle of the photograph on the basis of which the dead body has been identified. Nothing has been disclosed. Further there are no credible or trustworthy evidence circumstantial or otherwise that inexorably points to the guilt of the accused. The evidence of PW 5 is full of material contradiction and evidence of other witness do not speak much. Two important witnesses were not produced. It only revolves round the confessional statement of the accused. In the absence of the confessional statement, the prosecution case is breft of any significant pointer to connect the accused with the crime. 9. In the circumstances, we hold that there are no sufficient evidence to prove the guilt of the accused with the crime committed. Hence, judgment dated 24.6.91 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh is quashed and set aside. The accused be set at liberty forthwith.