JUDGMENT : S. K. Phaujdar, J. 1. These two appeals were heard together as they are directed against the same judgment recorded on 28.8.79 by the IIIrd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Jaunpur, in S.T. No. 299 of 1977. The appellants were found guilty under Section 302/34, I.P.C. and were convicted therefor and sentenced to imprisonment for life. Both of them were further convicted under Section 201, I.P.C. and each was sentenced to R.I. for a period for five years. The appellant. Ram Pher, has further found guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 366, I.P.C. and was sentenced to R.I. for seven years. All the sentences were to run concurrently. Upon appeal, the appellants were granted bail. 2. At the trial, the appellants were tried along with two other persons, namely, Kashi Ram and Ram Yash, who were acquitted by the trial court. The charges framed at the trial court indicated the appellant Ram Pher had in the night intervening 23rd and 24th July, 1977 at about 11 p.m. kidnapped one Usha Devi from the lawful guardianship of her father in village Banbeerpur, P.S. Badshahpur, District Jaunpur in order that she may be seduced to illicit intercourse. The further charge implicated all the four accused persons at the trial on an allegation that in the night intervening 25th and 26th July, 1977, they in furtherance of their common intention committed murder of Usha Devi and had caused the evidence of offence of murder to disappear by throwing the dead- body into a ditch. As per the prosecution story, Usha Devi was a girl aged about 16 and was married, her gauna (second marriage) was yet to be performed. On the night between 23rd and 24th July, 1977, the inmates of her house in the village Banbeerpur found her absent at about 11 p.m. At first they thought that she had gone out to attend the call of nature but when she did not return, they made a search for her. In the morning of 24th July, 1977, Ayodhya Prasad Pandey of that village informed the uncle of Usha Devi (Prasidha Narain) that he had seen Ram Pher and Ram Yash of Khomaipur taking away Usha on a cycle. Ayodhya Prasad had also disclosed that he had asked Ram Pher as to where were they going and he had answered that he was going for treatment to Badshahpur. Ayodhya Prasad had also disclosed that he had asked Ram Pher as to where were they going and he had answered that he was going for treatment to Badshahpur. The search was on for several days and only in the morning of 28th July, 1977, the dead-body of Usha was found floating in a ditch. Prasidh Narain Misra, thereafter, lodged a report at the police station on 28.7.1977. The police took up investigation, and took out the dead-body from the ditch filled with water and sent it for postmortem examination. The accused persons were arrested. It is the further case of the prosecution that accused Munshi, after his arrest, made some statement to the police leading to the recovery of certain ornaments belonging to Usha and at his pointing out the police had also recovered from beneath the water in the aforesaid ditch wearing apparels and the other belongings of the deceased, Usha. It is also alleged that Munshi had made a judicial confession. 3. The prosecution had examined 12 witnesses to prove its case. The defence did not examine any witness, but from the trend of the cross- examination and from the answers given by the two appellants in their statements under Section 313, Cr.P.C., it appears that they asserted that it was a case of false implication. Munshi also asserted that the alleged confession was coerced from him. 4. The learned trial court had acquitted the co-accused Kashi Ram and Ram Yash on the ground that they were of the family of the accused, Ram Pher; no specific part had been alleged against them. Kashi Ram was elder brother of Ram Pher and an old man. Ram Yash was a young lad and a nephew of Ram Pher and the trial court was of the view that in the circumstances of the case. Ram Pher would not have taken assistance in this crime from his own family members and he gave benefit of doubt to Kashi Ram and Ram Yash. The evidence against the appellants may be grouped in three categories. Firstly, there is allegation of 'last seen,' the girl having been seen in the company of the accused persons. Secondly, there is the recovery at the instance of Munshi and, thirdly, there is the judicial confession made by Munshi. The evidence against the appellants may be grouped in three categories. Firstly, there is allegation of 'last seen,' the girl having been seen in the company of the accused persons. Secondly, there is the recovery at the instance of Munshi and, thirdly, there is the judicial confession made by Munshi. The learned defence counsel submitted that neither of these circumstances have been proved by cogent and reliable evidence and the circumstances, sought to be proved by the prosecution did not form chain of evidence of such nature so as to point only to the guilt of the accused, incompatible with the theory of their innocence. It was further argued that when in a case some evidence was adduced against all and two were given benefit of doubt, the same benefit should have been available to the other accused persons as well. The learned defence counsel pointed out to the unexplained delay in lodging the F.I.R., to the material omissions in the vital documents like panchnama, as also to the material irregularities in recording the judicial confession. He also doubted the acceptability of the theory of recovery at the instance of Munshi. 5. We shall engage ourselves to see if the aforesaid three circumstances of last seen, recovery at the Instance of accused and confession of accused Munshi having proved with reliable and cogent evidence, or, if any doubt still lurks regarding those facts. Only thereafter we would go to the question if the circumstances point only to the guilt of the accused persons. 6. The evidence of last seen is given through P.W. 2, Ayodhya Prasad Pandey, and P.W. 9, Ambika Prasad Pandey. It is the evidence of Ayodhya Prasad that on the night of 23.7.1977, he had gone to the house of Pradhan Ram Lal in connection with staging a drama. He was returning at about 11 in the night when he reached near the house of Sarjoo Chowkidar, he saw some persons coming on cycles from the opposite side. He had a torch with him. He flashed his torch and found Ram Pher (accused) and Usha (the deceased) on one cycle and Ram Yash (acquitted accused) on another cycle. He had asked them as to where were they going and Ram Pher replied that they were going to Badshahpur for treatment of Usha. While talking, these persons proceeded to south to Badshahpur. He flashed his torch and found Ram Pher (accused) and Usha (the deceased) on one cycle and Ram Yash (acquitted accused) on another cycle. He had asked them as to where were they going and Ram Pher replied that they were going to Badshahpur for treatment of Usha. While talking, these persons proceeded to south to Badshahpur. He had not doubted any misdeed at that moment as Ram Pher and Ram Yash were in very familiar terms in the house of Prasidha Narain. The next morning he heard about missing of the girl and he went to the house of Prasidha Narain and told him what he had seen the earlier night. His torch was seized by police during investigation. His cross-examination makes it clear that the news of the missing girl had spread in the village by the morning and, accordingly, he had gone to the house of Prasidha Narain. The information was given to Prasidha Narain at 7 p.m. on 24.7.77. There was no statement made before the police Indicating that he had gone to the Pradhan concerning staging of a drama. He admitted that the night was dark. He further admitted that when he flashed the torch on the accused persons, they did not try to escape. They did not get down from the cycle and answered to the queries while riding. Usha did not say anything. She did not try to hide her face. Ayodhya Prasad did not ask Usha as to what was her ailment. He did not see Usha with any male or these accused persons on any other occasion prior to this day. He admitted that he was not in the habit of flashing torch on anybody during night. But he switched on his torch only to know as to who were the persons coming. This was insisted that he had accompanied Ayodhya Prasad to the thana but he did not wait for the Daroga (Sub-Inspector) to come there. According to him, the F.I.R. was written by Kamla Prasad in a tea- stall about 50 yards away from the police station. When they had first entered the police station, the police had asked them to give a report in writing. Accordingly, report was written by Kamla Prasad. P.W. 9 Ambika Prasad, stated that he had gone to Banbeerpur to the house of Kedar Ahir to whom he had sold certain land. When they had first entered the police station, the police had asked them to give a report in writing. Accordingly, report was written by Kamla Prasad. P.W. 9 Ambika Prasad, stated that he had gone to Banbeerpur to the house of Kedar Ahir to whom he had sold certain land. Some money was due from Kedar Ahir and he had gone to get that sum. He did not meet Kedar and waited there and was coming back after meals to his own village, Jaipalpur. These 2 villages are one mile apart. He reached a point wherefrom the road to Bimaipur diverts. He heard sound of presence of some persons. He had torch with him. He flashed it and found Kedar Nath, Ram Pher and Ram Yash with one girl moving towards west. He asked them as to wherefrom they were coming and they answered that they were coining from Badshahpur. These persons went towards west and the witness proceeded towards his village. This was on Monday. On the next Thursday, he got a report that the dead-body of a girl was floating in a ditch. He went there and saw that it was the dead-body of that whom he had seen on the Monday night alongwith the accused persons. His cross-examination indicates that before the police he made a statement that there was no sale of land, but only a talk of sale between him and Kedar and for this talk there was "delay on his part in returning to his village on the concerned date, he did not tell the police that he had gone to Kedar to demand money after the dead-body was found In the ditch. He had gone home and his statement was recorded only in the evening of the date of recovery. 7. These 2 statements regarding the girl having been seen in the company of the accused persons must be judged in comparison with the F.I.R. According to Ayodhya Prasad, only 2 persons were there with Usha. They were moving on cycle towards Badshahpur and the time was 11 p.m. According to Ambika Prasad, these were three, all coming from Badshahpur and the time was only 9 to 10 p.m. TheSE 2 witnesses spoke of 2 different dates. Ambika Prasad made no report to anybody before the dead-body was recovered. They were moving on cycle towards Badshahpur and the time was 11 p.m. According to Ambika Prasad, these were three, all coming from Badshahpur and the time was only 9 to 10 p.m. TheSE 2 witnesses spoke of 2 different dates. Ambika Prasad made no report to anybody before the dead-body was recovered. The F.I.R makes out that Ayodhya Prasad had reiterated his seeing the girl with Munshi and Ram Pher. The only explanation that has come in the F.I.R. and in the evidence of Prasidha Narain is that due to public shame he did not make any report on 24th about the girl moving with Ram Pher and Munshi. It does not appeal to reason that Prasidha Narain should suffer from fear of any public shame at that point of time when everybody in the village had come to know that the girl had been missing. Even if no report would have been made for any reason, the only normal reaction for the relations of Usha would have been to go to the house of Ram Pher on 24th itself, as Ayodhya Prasad had fully described Ram Pher as having been carrying Usha on his cycle. This Pam Pher was not somebody unknown to the family members of Usha. Evidence has come that he was introduced in the family of Usha as a mechanic and, subsequently, he became close like an inmate of the family. There is no acceptable reason put forth by Ayodhya Prasad or anybody as to why no report to the police station was made on 24th, 25th. 27th, or as to why no search was made in the house of Ram Pher. The disclosure was made only when the dead-body was recovered. We must opine that had this disclosure been made earlier, it is quite possible that the girl would not have died. 8. The evidence of Ayodhya Prasad of having seen the girl moving with Ram Pher gets the worst jolt from the fact that no report of that information was given to the police station although there is evidence that Ayodhya Prasad and Prasidha Narain had been to Badshahpur (where the police station is situated) on 25.7.77. Ambika Prasad had claimed to have seen the deceased In the company of 3 accused and moving towards Badshahpur in the night of Monday (possibly. 25th July. 1977). Ambika Prasad had claimed to have seen the deceased In the company of 3 accused and moving towards Badshahpur in the night of Monday (possibly. 25th July. 1977). It was not a normal time for any woman, even in the company of male escorts, to move from one village to another. He gave out the name of the accused persons, suggesting that he knew them. It is quite possible because they were people from neighbouring villages on the same reasoning, Ayodhya Prasad should have known the girl also, and the day he saw them, the fact of missing of the girl must have spread to the neighbouring village together with the name of Ram Pher, as allegedly seen by Ambika Prasad. There is no reason, therefore, why Ambika Prasad would remain silent till the dead-body was recovered. If we go by alternative argument that the girl was thoroughly unknown to Ayodhya Prasad, then we face another difficulty. Ambika had per chance looked to these persons in one flash of the torch and it is. therefore a tall demand for him to say that he could remember the face of the girl to identify as to whom he had seen two nights ahead. Together with this, we have in cross-examination of Ambika Prasad that he had changed his version concerning the reason for his being on the road at that hour on that night. He had made another improvement in his first story as given out to the police. In court he had stated that his attention was attracted to the ditch as some persons had assembled there. Before the police, he had stated that he had gone there on hearing the hue and cry of the persons. He alleges to have stated to the assembled persons near the ditch that he had seen girl on Monday night with the accused persons. One of said persons present near the ditch is Rajai Yadav (P.W. 3). He is silent about the presence of Ambika Prasad or of his making any disclosure near the ditch, as claimed. Another witness on the point of recovery of the dead-body from the ditch is Baldeo. He makes a statement that when the body was seen floating in the water Ambika had gone there and after sometime the Sub-Inspector had also reached. Another witness on the point of recovery of the dead-body from the ditch is Baldeo. He makes a statement that when the body was seen floating in the water Ambika had gone there and after sometime the Sub-Inspector had also reached. Before the arrival of the Sub-Inspector, Ambika Prasad had told Baldeo and others that on Monday night Ambika had seen this very girl moving with Kashi, Ram Pher and Ram Yash. Back to the evidence of Ambika again, we find that although Ambika reached the spot, found the dead-body floating, identified the girl to be the same whom he had seen on Monday night, he did not wait there. His statement was taken by the police only in the evening. When a man suspects for good reasons that some offence has been committed, it would have been only natural that he would give his statement to the police at the earliest opportunity. The police had come at about 10 a.m. to the spot and there is no reason why Ambika should not have given statement then and there. His evidence discloses that he is a man of Jaipalpur and the concerned ditch was at the border of Jaipalpur and Banbeerpur where Ambika had cultivable land. This was more a reason for which Ambika should have waited at the spot for the police to come. The learned defence counsel while assailing prosecution case for reasons of delay also drew our attention to the panchayatnama that was prepared by the police for the recovery of the dead-body. It did not bear any case number although the report was allegedly made in the morning of 28.7.77 and the recovery panchayatnama was made after that at about 11 a.m. (In the panchayatnama was it necessary the witnesses are six in number. But not a single out of these six has been examined by the prosecution). Ext. ka 22 indicates that the dead-body was sent for post-mortem examination together with relevant papers. The chalan of the dead-body also does not indicate the case number. It was contended by the learned defence counsel that, in fact, the dead-body was recovered first and only thereafter a suitable F.I.R. and other suitable papers were concocted. The delay in lodging the F.I.R., the inconsistencies in the evidence of Ayodhya Prasad and Ambika, respectively, P.Ws. The chalan of the dead-body also does not indicate the case number. It was contended by the learned defence counsel that, in fact, the dead-body was recovered first and only thereafter a suitable F.I.R. and other suitable papers were concocted. The delay in lodging the F.I.R., the inconsistencies in the evidence of Ayodhya Prasad and Ambika, respectively, P.Ws. 2 and 9, and the absence of case number in the panchayatnama or dead- body challan not only raises a suspicion and doubt on the theory of last seen, as advanced by the prosecution, but also a serious doubt is cast after if at all the F.I.R. was lodged before the recovery of the dead-body. 9. We may now travel to another circumstance and that is the alleged confession of Munshi Ram. It is the case of the prosecution that immediately after the arrest, Munshi Ram pointed out to places from where certain ornaments certain clothes and other materials said to be belonging to Usha (deceased) were recovered. Only thereafter he is forwarded to the Magistrate with a prayer for recording his confessional statement. This confessional statement has been brought on record by P.W. 19, Sri Sabhapati Singh, Munsif Magistrate. The confessional statement was recorded by him and is exhibited ka. 11 in the trial court record. It has clearly 2 parts. The first part of this confessional statement relates to the incidents prior to the death of Usha and the next part relates to her death and thereafter. So far as the first part is concerned, Munshi had stated that Ram Pher had come to him and asked him to accompany him to the house of Prasidha Narain. Reaching his house, Ram Pher told him that he had to take out the niece of Prasidha Narain. Munshi forbade Ram Pher but he threatened him. Then they went to the house of Dangal Yadav and waited there. Usha Devi reached there in the meantime and all of them then came to the house of Ram Pher. Ram Pher had asked her if she had brought her ornaments. She had answered in the affirmative and indicated where the same were kept. Ram Pher took the ornaments and proceeded, girl following him, followed by Munshi. Usha went to the house of Ram Pher and Munshi had also gone there. At about 3 in the night. Ram Pher had asked her if she had brought her ornaments. She had answered in the affirmative and indicated where the same were kept. Ram Pher took the ornaments and proceeded, girl following him, followed by Munshi. Usha went to the house of Ram Pher and Munshi had also gone there. At about 3 in the night. Ram Pher gave him three pieces of ornaments and asked him to go away from the place. Munshi kept the ornaments in a glass and hid it in his khet'. 10. The second part of the incident as allegedly confessed by Munshi was of the next Monday. In the mid-night. Ram Yash, nephew of Ram Pher. had come to him and told him that Ram Pher had called him as he had to go to Punjab. They went to a place near the house of Sita Ram Kewat where he found Kashi Ram, Usha and Ram Pher. While Kashi Ram and Munshi stood near the door, Ram Yash gagged Usha and Ram Pher throttled her to death. The dead-body was wrapped up with clothes and thrown by Ram Pher and Ram Yash in a ditch tying bricks with it. It is clear from the language of the confession that in fact it is not a confession as it is absolutely exculpatory in nature. We shall look to the admissibility of this confession as against its maker, Munshi, in our further discussions, but it may be stated at the outset that this exculpatory statement of Munshi, if at all believed to have been made, can never be used as evidence against the accused Kashi Ram. Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act makes confession of an accused admissible against a co-accused on condition that they are all tried Jointly in the same offence, and the confession made by one affects himself and others. This clearly suggests that to make confession of an accused relevant against another, the first condition is that it should be affecting the maker i.e. it should be inculpatory so far as he is concerned. In the present case, in the first part of the confession, Munshi only takes the responsibility of sharing the booty and definitely that was of a date prior to the alleged murder. In the present case, in the first part of the confession, Munshi only takes the responsibility of sharing the booty and definitely that was of a date prior to the alleged murder. In the second phase he involved himself only to the degree of being present on the spot without doing anything in the commission of murder or disposal of the dead- body. We reiterate that this confession can be of no avail against the accused Ram Pher. Let us go to the confession itself now to see whether it was voluntary or there are any doubts on its being voluntary. The confession was recorded by P.W. 19, Sri Sabhapati Singh. According to him, Munshi was produced before him on 6.8.77. He claimed to have warned the accused that he was not bound to make any statement and, if at all he made any, it could have been used against him. It is claimed that inspite of such warning Munshi insisted on making a confession and only then it was recorded by him. The confession was recorded on that very date. After the warning, P.W. 19 waited only for half-an-hour to start recording the confessional statement. There is nothing on record to indicate that he satisfied himself that the statement was being made voluntarily or that the accused was not under the influence of any threat or promise from the police. In this connection, our attention was drawn to the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Sarown Singh v. State of Punjab as reported in AIR 1957 SC at page 637 in which the Supreme Court indicated the duty of the Magistrate in recording the confessional statement under Section 164, Cr. P.C. The Supreme Court observed : "When an accused person is produced before the Magistrate by the Investigating Officer, it is of utmost importance that the mind of the accused person should be completely freed from any possible influence of the police and the effective way to securing such freedom from fear to the accused person is to send him to jail custody and to give him adequate time to consider whether he should make a confession at all. It would naturally be difficult to lay down any hard and fast rule as to the time which should be allowed to an accused person in any given case. It would naturally be difficult to lay down any hard and fast rule as to the time which should be allowed to an accused person in any given case. However, speaking generally, it would, we think, be reasonable to insist upon giving an accused person at least 24 hours to decide whether or not he should make a confession. Where there may be reason to suspect that the accused have been pursuaded or coerced to make a confession, even longer period may have to be given to him before his statement is recorded." In the case before the Supreme Court the accused was produced before the Magistrate on 30th November, 1994 at about 2.30 p.m. Only half-an-hour was allowed to the accused to think about a statement which he was going to make and soon thereafter confessional statement was recorded. The Supreme Court was of the opinion that in the circumstance of the case it was impossible to accept the view that enough time was given to the accused to think over the matter. In the case at our hand also the accused was produced by the police before the Magistrate on 6.8.77 and it is the admitted position, as per P.W. 19, that just after half-an-hour of such production he started recording the statement of Munshi. There was nothing in evidence that the Magistrate indicated to the accused that he could have a second thought over the matter. There is nothing on record to indicate that the Magistrate made any question to the accused to know if influence of police was there still on his mind or if he was volunteering the statement. It is difficult, therefore, to rely on such confessional statement. It is worth to note that this alleged confession has been retracted and the accused Munshi in his statement under Section 313 has accepted that the statement was coerced from him. Even if the confession had been acceptable, in view of its retraction we should have insisted upon corroboration on material particulars which unfortunately have not been advanced by the prosecution. 11. We are, therefore, left with only one more circumstance advanced by the prosecution. This relates to the alleged action on the part of Munshi in pointing out places wherefrom certain ornaments and certain personal belongings of the deceased (Usha) were recovered. 11. We are, therefore, left with only one more circumstance advanced by the prosecution. This relates to the alleged action on the part of Munshi in pointing out places wherefrom certain ornaments and certain personal belongings of the deceased (Usha) were recovered. So far as the recovery of personal belongings from the ditch at the pointing out of Munshi is concerned, we may have a fresh look to the provisions of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Normally, confession before the police is not admissible, but Section 27 makes a proviso to this rule and it states that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to confession or not, as relates to distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved. It is the prosecution case that on pointing out by Munshi, after his arrest, certain personal belongings of Usha were recovered on 5.8.77 from that very ditch wherefrom the dead-body of Usha was recovered as far back on 28.7.77. 12. The information which Munshi had allegedly given, which led to the recovery of personal belongings of Usha, has come from the statement of Shyam Lai, P.W. 4. It is alleged that after his arrest and after recovery of the ornaments on his pointing out, Munshi, on further query, had stated that some materials were lying there where the dead-body of the girl was thrown (Kuch Samaan Wahan Hat Jehan Ladki ki Laash Dali Gayee Hai). It is stated that he took the police officer and the witnesses to the ditch after much endeavour one bag containing sarees, petty-coats, blouses, towels, kum, two containers of powder, one looking glass, one soap case and some pieces of ribbon were recovered. The place allegedly pointed out by the accused was already known to the police and everybody as one from where the dead-body was recovered atleast a week ahead of the information received from Munshi. Whether Munshi had given such information to police is another question, but even if it is accepted that he did make such a statement, it is difficult to conclude that any fact was discovered consequent thereto. Whether Munshi had given such information to police is another question, but even if it is accepted that he did make such a statement, it is difficult to conclude that any fact was discovered consequent thereto. That the dead-body was recovered from that ditch was a known fact and the recovery of the materials belonging to the deceased may be a new recovery' but not a discovery of fact. In fact, the police, after recovery of the dead-body, should have made further search into the ditch and could have on such an attempt recovered these materials even without the alleged information from Munshi. Moreover, when the dead body was found there, it could be anybody's guess that some further materials might be found there, when we look to this part of the information from Munshi in comparison to his alleged confession made before the Magistrate, we find that in the said confession there is no whisper about putting in any material in a bag or throwing the same into the water. For the ornaments the recovery was made from a place accessible to any other person and the information allegedly made by Munshi in this regard is that he could locate the material he got in his share. If we look to the alleged confession of Munshi in this regard, it connects him not with the offence of murder because the ornaments were distributed on the night of elopement of Usha and not after her alleged killing. There is no material before us to know if the ornaments were taken by force from Usha. Rather, the alleged confession of Munshi Indicates that Usha voluntarily made over the ornaments to Ram Pher. The recovery was made, not from the exclusive possession of Munshi and the recovery or the information preceding it, cannot be connected with the murder of Usha, if she was murdered at all. 13. We have consciously added the last clause in the preceding paragraph questioning the very factum of murder and barring the alleged confession of Munshi, there is no evidence on record to show that Usha was murdered or done to death by any human hand. WE may look to the medical evidence in this connection. P.W. 10, Dr. Udai Singh, was the surgeon who held the post-mortem on the dead-body of Usha. WE may look to the medical evidence in this connection. P.W. 10, Dr. Udai Singh, was the surgeon who held the post-mortem on the dead-body of Usha. According to him, he did not find any ante-mortem Injury on the dead-body of Usha. He opined in the cross-examination that the death could have occurred due to drowning or due to her being forcibly drowned. The body was in an advanced stage of decomposition and signs of drowning were not expected at that stage. He admitted that the decomposition was in such a stage that it was impossible to suggest the cause of death. It is the prosecution case that the death occurred in the night between 25th and 26th July, 1977. The doctor accepted that death could have occurred during that night. In cross- examination, however, the doctor further admitted that the death might well have occurred during the night between 23rd and 24th July, 1977. Normally in cases of drowning, according to the doctor, water is found in the stomach, but he has further stated that absence of water in the stomach could well be due to decomposition of the dead-body. 14. We have discussed all the circumstances put forth by the prosecution to bring home the charge against Ram Pher and Munshi. For Ram Pher, we have on record the fact that he was in visiting terms in the house of Usha. This cannot be a circumstance leading to any inference of criminality of Ram Pher. The further circumstance sought to be brought on record is that of last seen and our discussions made above indicate that it is difficult to accept the evidence on that point. The alleged confession of Munshi, we may reiterate. is of no value against Ram Pher as it is absolutely exculpatory in nature. For Munshi the alleged confession must be doubted to be involuntary for reasons given by us in the earlier paragraphs of this Judgment. The fact of alleged recovery of personal belongings of Usha at the pointing out of Munshi is also not free from doubt and is not corroborated by any material particulars by independent evidence. For Munshi the alleged confession must be doubted to be involuntary for reasons given by us in the earlier paragraphs of this Judgment. The fact of alleged recovery of personal belongings of Usha at the pointing out of Munshi is also not free from doubt and is not corroborated by any material particulars by independent evidence. The fact of recovery of ornaments at his instance do not connect him with the alleged murder, when the doctor could not establish medically that it was a case of murder, it was more incumbent for the prosecution to prove the witnesses of panchnama in whose presence the dead-body was recovered and inquest was conducted. Not a single of those witnesses have been examined and the prosecution came up with no explanation for their non-examination. WE have already stated about the delay in lodging even a missing report for Usha by her father or uncle. It is unfortunate that a girl, died in such a circumstance. It is further unfortunate that she should get an apathetic attitude from the inmates of her own house-hold who are always scared of public shame and who have shown the least regard for human relationship. But the sympathy to the girl may not be of any held when the prosecution case is doubtful at every term of the case. The accused persons, therefore, must be given the benefit of doubt which the prosecution, if they desired, could have resolved. In the result, the appeal stands allowed. The orders of conviction and sentence of the two appellants are set aside and they are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. They are reported to be on bail. Their bail bonds stand cancelled and the sureties are discharged. Appeal allowed.