Judgment Prasun Kumar Deb, J. 1. The sole appellant in this case has been convicted under Section 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. However, both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 2. The allegation against the appellant is of committing the murder of his wiJe Usha Devi and for screening himself from the legal punishment, he made to disappear the evidence of murder by concealing the deadbody of his wife. 3. The brief facts of the case run as follows. The informant in this case in Rakesh Mohan Sinha, officer-in-charge of Govindpur Police Station who has been examined in the case as PW 7. He filed a written report with the Telco Police Station which had got the jurisdiction over the place of occurrence of the case. As per that report, Ramashray Prasad, Ex-Militaryman of Village-Garairabigha, Police Station Ekanger6arai, district Nalanda, sent a petition on 10-8-1984 at his police station which was received on 20-8-1984 and a Sanha Entry No. 406 of that date was made. As per that petition, the daughter of Ramashray Prasad, namely, Usha Devi was married to Shashi Bhushan Yadav, accused-appellant son of Ram Prasad Yadav in the year 1981. Duragaman (Gawana) was performed in the month of Baisakh in 1984 and his daughter went to her in-laws house at village Barbigha, Police Station Ekangersarai, in the district of Nalanda, and from there, she returned to his house on 25th/26th June, 1984. Then it was alleged that on 12th, July 1984, his son-in-law i.e., the accused-appellant, Shashi Bushan Yadav came to his house for Bidal of his wife. Accordingly Usha Devi was sent with him to Tata Nagar Govindpur but after some days he got a letter (Inland letter) written by his son-in-law dated 30th July, 1984, from Madras Central to the effect that his daughter died all on a sudden at Madras. Then he contacted his Samdhi Ram Prasad Yadav at Patel Nagar-Chhota Govindpur and enquired about his daughter but the later told him that he had no information about his daughter and then and then only suspecting foul play, he made a petition on the basis of which Sanha entry was made, as mentioned above. Then he contacted his Samdhi Ram Prasad Yadav at Patel Nagar-Chhota Govindpur and enquired about his daughter but the later told him that he had no information about his daughter and then and then only suspecting foul play, he made a petition on the basis of which Sanha entry was made, as mentioned above. In the petition, it was further stated that he doubted that his daughter was either kept some where secretly or killed by her husband and Sasural people. Along with that petition, he also attached the Inland letter of the accused-appellant alleged to be written from Madras Central. On the basis of that Sanha report, PW 7 made enquiries and through imformers be could know that Shashi Bhushan Yudav was not available but after about ten months i.e., on 13th May, 1985, he got a confidential report that the accused appellant had come to bis fathers house at Patel Nagar. On the basis of that confindential information, he along with his three Constables left the police station at about 1.30 p.m. on that date for Patel Nagar. After reaching the house of Ram Prasad Yadav at 2 p.m. He saw one person standing outside, but on seeing the police he became nervous and tried to run away but on chasing he could be cought hold of and enquiries were made about Sanha report. First of all, he denied every thing but on interrogation, he narrated that after taking his wife Usha Devi from the house of her father on 12-7-1984, he came to Patna at noon and on the same day he boarded Patna Tata Express train for Tatanagar at 5 p.m. and on 13-7-1984 at about 9 a.m. he reached Tatanagar Railway Station along his wife. After keeping his wife awaiting at the Platform he came outside the Station and purchased a Chhura and kept it concealing in his Paint. Then he took Usha Devi outside the Station and hiring a Tempo and came to Sakchi Bus Stand from where hiring another Tempo and took his wife Usha Devi to Telco-Hudco Hill area at about 1 p.m. Then he along with his wife went to Hill side and they sat and talked for sometime. In the meantime he took out the dagger and cut the throat of his wife and also caused injuries on the stomach by stabbing. In the meantime he took out the dagger and cut the throat of his wife and also caused injuries on the stomach by stabbing. She died instan taneously and then he threw the deadbody in a nearby ditch covered with bushes and from there he returned to Sakchi and then by boarding Tata-Madras Express from Tatanagar Railway Station, he went to Madras. For some days he wondered here and there and sent an Inland letter to his in-laws house and he concealed himself till then. 4. Then accused appellant was asked to show the place where the alleged murder was committed. Then, according to the first information report, the accused-appellant took the police party to Telco-Hudco Lake Area and on the way they met PWs 4 and 5 and took them as witnesses. In the Hudco Hill Area on being pointed out by the accused-appellant is a ditch covered with bushes, they found skelton and pieces of skull and two bones of waist and hand and some hairs of head tied with Choti. In the same ditch, further a portion of Petticoat of waist earea and some broken bangles of red-white and green colour and a portion of Nylon Sari with blue-yellow printing and a pair of Hawai Chappel with blue colour strips were found and seized. It is the further case that on seeing the articles and bones, the accused-appellant confessed that these remains were of his wife Usha Devi to whom he murdered on 13th July, 1984 as stated earlier. All the articles were seized in presence of PWs 4 and 5 who put their signatures in the seizure list itself. Then the accused-appellant was arrested and the written report along with the accused-appellant were forwarded to Telco Police Station on 13-5-1985 itself. On the basis of that report, first information report (Ext. 1) was registered and after investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused-appellant under Section 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code. On being committed to the court of sessions, charges were framed under the said section of the Indian Penal Code and when the same was read over and explained to the accused, he pleaded not guilty. 5. 1) was registered and after investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused-appellant under Section 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code. On being committed to the court of sessions, charges were framed under the said section of the Indian Penal Code and when the same was read over and explained to the accused, he pleaded not guilty. 5. The defence plea in the total denial, according to the defence version, there was a talk of marriage between Shashi Bhushan Yadav and Usha Devi but the same proposal could not be finalised due to demand of money-matters from the side of the boy and then the accused-appellant on gun point was kidnapped and vague marriage was performed between Usha Devi and the accused-appellant and that the said Usha Devi never went either to her Sasural or to Tatanagar and all the allegations made by the prosecution are concocted. It is the assertion of the defence that Usha Devi might have gone some where else from her fathers house aad to conceal those, PW 2, the father of Usha Devi, in collusion with PW 7 made out this false and concocted story against the accused-appellant. 6. For and on behalf of the prosecution, in total, eleven witnesser have been examined. PW 1 Sailesh Kumar is the nephew of the deceased Usha Devi. PW 2 Ramashray Prasad, father of Usha Devi and PW 3 Moonki Devi, mother of Usha Devi are the star witnesses who supported the prosecution case. PW 4 Subhnarayan Tiwary and PW 5 Brahmandand Rai, the alleged seizure witnesses, did not support the prosecution case and as such they were declared hostile. PW 6 Sita Ram Hembram is the nephew of Kunda Ho, PW 9, who is deaf and dumb and whose evidence could not be recorded as there was no interpretor available to interprete his sign of indication. PW 6 to whom the prosecution relied to have interpreted the sign of Kunda Ho during the course of investigation has been declared hostile. According to the prosecution, this Kunda Ho was the Watchkeeper of Telco-Hudco Lake Area and he could identify the accused-appellant who had committed the offence which was eye witnessed by him. PW 7 Rakesh Mohan Sinha is the informant in the case. PW 8 Arun Kumar Rai is the Judicial Magistrate who conducted test identification parade of the seized articles. According to the prosecution, this Kunda Ho was the Watchkeeper of Telco-Hudco Lake Area and he could identify the accused-appellant who had committed the offence which was eye witnessed by him. PW 7 Rakesh Mohan Sinha is the informant in the case. PW 8 Arun Kumar Rai is the Judicial Magistrate who conducted test identification parade of the seized articles. PW 10 is the Investigating Officer of the case and PW1 Balram Mahto is an Advocates Clerk at Jamshedpur who has proved the Forensic report given by the Lady Doctor Smt. Renu Bala of Rajendra Medical College Hospital, Ranohi. Practically the prosecution case is based on the evidence of PWs 1, 2, 3 and 7 regarding the indentification of the human skelton etc., on the report of Dr. Renu Bala (Ext. 9) in the case. 7. The prosecution case is based on practically and purely circumstantial evidence. The first part is based on the alleged marriage of Usha Devi, the deceased and the accused-appellant and their coming out from the house of PW 2 on 12th July, 1984, The second part consisted of the alleged confession of the accused-appellant and leading to discovery of the skelton of the deadbody including wearing apparels of the deceased as per Section 27 of the Evidence Act and the last part is about the findings of the doctor regarding the skelton seized and the identification of the wearing apparels of the deceased. 8. For and on behalf of the accused-appellant, Mr. M. M. Banerjee, learned counsel for the appellant challenges the impugned judgment of conviction on the following grounds : (i) The identification of the deadbody by the skelton recovered has not been established but the learned court below has relied on the report of the doctor (Ext. 9) although according to him, the same has not been proved as per law and reliance of the same is bad in the eye of law. (ii) The test identification chart (Ext. 7) regarding the wearing apparels of the deceased does not infer that the same belonged to the deceased and except the partisan witnesses, none have supported the same and the test identification chart is valueless as per the evidence of PW 1 himself. (iii) The alleged confession of accused (Ext. (ii) The test identification chart (Ext. 7) regarding the wearing apparels of the deceased does not infer that the same belonged to the deceased and except the partisan witnesses, none have supported the same and the test identification chart is valueless as per the evidence of PW 1 himself. (iii) The alleged confession of accused (Ext. 5) before the police officer is totally inadmissible in evidence and reliance of the same by the learned court below is against the principles of law. (iv) The prosecution story is based primarily on Ext. 1, the letter alleged to be written by the accused-appellant from Madras Central but that letter could not be proved by cogent and reliable evidence. 9. Mr. S. N. Rajgarhia, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for and on behalf of the State has submitted that the prosecution could be able to prove all the circumstances in the case to form a chain and those circumstances being proved lead to the only inference towards the guilt of the accused-appellant. 10. Before entering into the discussions of the rival submissions made by the parties to this appeal it must be stated that the whole prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence alone. The circumstances are such that the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused-appellant and that at the confession of the accused-appellant, the skelton along with the wearing apparels of the deceased could be recovered. If those circumstances as alleged are proved beyond all reasonable doubt then definitely those can lead to the conviction of the accused-appellant, but if there is any missing link in the chain of circumstances, then the benefit must go in favour of the accused-appellant. 11. The first and foremost burden of the prosecution is to prove that the skelton belonged to the deceased. On this point, the only evidence led from the side of the prosecution is the report, Ext. 9, which has been proved by PW 11, Balram Mahto who happens to be an Advocates Clerk of Jamshedpur. Definitely his witness has got no connection with Rajendra Medical College Hospital, Ranchi, where the writer of the report, namely, Dr. (Mrs.) Renu Bala used to work. Normally such skelton when recovered are sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Patna, for the purpose of chemical examination. Definitely his witness has got no connection with Rajendra Medical College Hospital, Ranchi, where the writer of the report, namely, Dr. (Mrs.) Renu Bala used to work. Normally such skelton when recovered are sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Patna, for the purpose of chemical examination. Here also, from the evidence of PW 10 (Om Prakash Singh), it could be found that he had sent the skelton and the other materials recovered to the Forensic Science Laboratory for the purpose of examination, but, according to him, as per the advice of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Patna, he had sent them to Rajehdra Medical College Hospital, Ranchi. It is not known whether Dr. Renu Bala had any qualification in the Forensic Science or not. Unless her expertise is proved in that line, the report loses all its importance. A report of the Chemical Examiner from the Government Forensic Science Laboratory is itself admissible in evidence under Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but even it is admissible itself then also by the prudence of the court, always the writer of the report or the person who had examined the materials are brought to the court for the purpose of proving the report and the conclusion thereof. Here Dr. Renu Bala has not been produced and it was not on record that she had any expertise in the Forensic Science and, most surprisingly, PW 10 had to depose that there is nothing in his case diary to the effect that he was requested by the Forenisc Science Laboratory for sending the materials to Rajendra Medical College Hospital, so there is every doubt regarding this part of evidence of PW 10 of sending the skelton to Rajendra Medical College Hospital, Ranchi for examination at the initiation of Forensic Science Laboratory. Thus it can safely be held that the report (Ext. 9) has not been proved as required under the law and the contents of it cannot be accepted as it is when the examiner had not been examined and no opportunity could be made available to the defence for her cross-examination. 12. Now coming to the contents of the report itself. The skelton belongs to a female body aged about 19-20 year which takes with the description of the age of the deceased given by the prosecution. 12. Now coming to the contents of the report itself. The skelton belongs to a female body aged about 19-20 year which takes with the description of the age of the deceased given by the prosecution. As per that report, the skelton had head injury which was a cut injury one in the head region and according to the doctor, the same was the cause of death. In the impugned judgment, the learned court below has stated that such injury in the head region on the deadbody of Usha Devi might have resulted due to throwing of the deadbody into the ditch but that is not the case of the prosecution. According to the doctors report, that injury was the cause of death and if that was due to throwing of the deadbody into a ditch, then there must be a lacerated injury. Moreover when the identity of the deadbody in question is not established, such sort of inference is not permissible. The prosecution must stand on its own leg. The attempt of the prosecution was to establish the case on the basis of the confessions made by the accused before the police which is definitely inadmissible in evidence. As per that confession, there was cut of throat and stabbing of abdomen of Usha Devi. Even the inadmissible confession of the accused is not tallying with the report. Thus the skelton found in the ditch could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt to be that of the deceased Usha Devi and on this score also, the accused-appellant is entitled to get the benefit of doubt. 13. As regards the identification of wearing apparels there is evidence of PW 1 to the effect that before those materials were brought for identification in the test identification parade by PW 8, those articles were shown to him by the police before his statement was recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, so this test identification parade and identification thereof loses all its sanctity. Identification of those articles by PW 2, the father of Usha Devi, is not worth believable as it was his statement before the police under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that he was not present in Bidai ceremony and the wearing apparel were purchased by his wife Munki Devi before Bidai of their daughter as at that time he was posted at Dalmianagar as Security Officer, but before the trial court, for the purpose of identification, he has convenintly changed the story to the offect that he was also present at the time of Bidai. From all these facts, there is doubt about the identification of wearing apparels of the deceased. Normally in the village area, at the time of Bidai of a village girl, many people of the village remained present, but no independent witnesses have been brought from the prosecution to prove or identify the wearing apparels of the deceased. On this score also, the accused-appellant is entitled to get benefit of doubt. 14. As regards the alleged confession of the accused-appellant before the police which has been marked as Ext. 5 in the case, the same is definitely inadmissible in evidence as per Section 25 of the Evidence Act and marking of the same as exhibit before the trial court is definitely bad. The only confession before the police officer is admissible as per Section 27 of the Evidence Act which statement reduced leads to discovery of an incriminating article in a criminal case. In the present case, that part may be taken into consideration if it could be proved that his statement led the police to discover the incriminating things, such as, the skelton and wearing apparels of the deceased. I have already mentioned in the above paragraphs that the skelton and wearing apparels could not be proved beyond all reasonable doubts to be belonging to the deceased and as such those discovery led by the accused-appellant may not be admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. I have already mentioned in the above paragraphs that the skelton and wearing apparels could not be proved beyond all reasonable doubts to be belonging to the deceased and as such those discovery led by the accused-appellant may not be admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. But even if it is taken to be granted that those skelton and wearing apparels were really the incriminating articles then also from the evidence of PWs 4 and 5, it is clear that it was not the accused-appellant who led police to discover those articles rather, according to them, the accused appellant was in the police custody at the time the discovery was made he was not present at the site. This evidence of PWs 4 and 5 had made the whole part of the confession even under Section 27 of the Evidence Act inadmissible in evidence. 15. As regards the letter (Ext. 1) alleged to be written by the accused-appellant to PW 2, there is confusing evidence from the side of the prosecution. In the Sanha entry the letter is mentioned to be written as Inland Letter "Anterdeshi Patra", but very surprisingly, the letter which has been exhibited in the case is on ruling sheet of papers and definitely the same is not an Inland Letter. There is no explanation from the side of the prosecution in this score to clarify the same. Ext. 1, the letter, is said to be attached to Sanha report on the basis of the application filed by PW 2 but neither that Sanha report was seized from that police station (Ekangarsarai) nor it is said as to wherefrom the letter is coming in the custody of the Investigating Officer. Thus, this part of prosecution evidence is totally doubtful. 16. Although the prosecution has strenuously tried to establish that there was valid marriage between the accused-appellant and Usha Devi, but the letter Ext. 1/1 produced by PW 2 cast grave doubt as to the solemnity of marriage ceremony between the two. In course of argument, it has been stated from the side of the State that even if it is taken to be granted that the accused-appellant was practically kidnapped for the purpose of giving marriage as in some area of the State of Bihar, this sort of procedure is followed, then also, the fact remains that there was marriage. In course of argument, it has been stated from the side of the State that even if it is taken to be granted that the accused-appellant was practically kidnapped for the purpose of giving marriage as in some area of the State of Bihar, this sort of procedure is followed, then also, the fact remains that there was marriage. If such sort of marriage was really there, as it has been admitted from tbe side of the defence also, then can it be possible to imagine that soon after the marriage, the relationship between the two families became very cordial and Smt. Usha Devi was sent for, to her Sasural ? If that is also considered then Ext. 1/1 totally cast a doubt about such cordial relationship or her Gauna itself. But considering those) facts to be in favour of the prosecution then also the vital facts of taking Bidai by the accused-appellant and then making confession before PW 7 could not be proved beyond all reasonable doubts. 17. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is hereby set aside and the accused appellant is acquitted on benefit of doubt. The appellant is in custody. He should be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. Ravi Nandan Sahay, J. 18 I agree.