JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the sentence of life-imprisonment inflicted upon him for conviction Under section 302, Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case is that on 12.9.1977 at about 4.30 a.m. report Ex. 12 was lodged by the appellant at Police Station, Bagra to the effect that the appellant was married to Jaya three years ago; he used to live at the Beli alongwith his wife Jaya (deceased), his brother and sister-in-law. On the relevant date i.e., 12.9.1977, his brother Kishore Singh had gone to fetch his wife who was at her father's house. Jaya, wife of the accused-appellant, was not treating him properly and used to quarrel with him and hurl abuses at him. She would not even cook his meal. On the relevant date, he went with his brother Bhika to plough the field. Even till the meal-time his wife did not come out of the house. Then he and his brother cooked the food and after taking the meals they went back to plough the field. In the noon, he left Bhika for grazing the bullock and himself returned to home where he found his wife asleep. On being awakened, she started hurling abuses which he could not tolerate and assaulted her with `dantala' which he was carrying in his hand and inflicted injuries until she died. Her dead-body is lying on a mattress in the room which he would show and the `dantala' with which he has murdered his wife he has placed on the iron-sheets stuck over his kitchen. On report being lodged, case Under section 302, Indian Penal Code was registered against the accused-appellant. The appellant was arrested on 12.9.1977 vide arrest-memo Ex. P/10. Autopsy on the dead-body of Jaya was conducted by PW 3 Dr. Kedar Roop Mathur. The post-mortem report Ex. P/8 is dated 12.9.1977. The dantala, the alleged weapon used by the appellant for assaulting deceased Jaya was seized from the house of the appellant vide seizure-memo Ex. P/6. The site-plan is Ex. P/13. Dhoti and shirt worn by (he appellant were also seized. The weapon `dantala', dhoti and shirt were sealed and sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur for examination. The FSL report is Ex. P/14. The report of the Serologist & Chemical Examiner is Ex. P/15. Ex. P/14 and Ex. P/6. The site-plan is Ex. P/13. Dhoti and shirt worn by (he appellant were also seized. The weapon `dantala', dhoti and shirt were sealed and sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur for examination. The FSL report is Ex. P/14. The report of the Serologist & Chemical Examiner is Ex. P/15. Ex. P/14 and Ex. P/15 indicate that `dantala', dhoti and shirt were stained with human blood. The prosecution examined 9 witnesses to prove its case. PW 2 Bhik Singh, PW 5 Balwant Singh and PW 7 Kishore Singh are the brothers of the appellant. They have been examined to prove the fact of presence of the appellant at the relevant time of the occurrence at his residence. PW 1 Ranjeet Singh, PW 4 Peer Singh and PW 6 Tara Chand are motbir-witnesses and were examined to prove the fact of seizure of dantala, dhoti and shirt of the appellant. PW 9 Jabbar Singh is the constable who carried the sealed packets for forensic examination to Jaipur. PW 8 Narpat Singh is the Investigating Officer who was posted as SHO, P.S. Bagara. 2. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Public Prosecutor and have carefully gone through the entire material on record. This is a case where the incident has not been witnessed by anyone and thus the accused-appellant can be found guilty on the basis of circumstantial evidence. The trial Court has convicted the accused-appellant on the basis of the following circumstances: i. That the appellant was the only person living with the deceased at the time of incident as his brother Kishore Singh and his wife (Kishore Singh's wife) were out of station. ii. The nature of injuries sustained by the deceased cannot be said to be self-inflicted. iii. The appellant kept silent although villagers had come to his place and he had not informed as to how his wife had died nor had named any person to be the assailant. 3. The question is whether the circumstances under which the incident took place and the circumstances on the basis of which the appellant was found guilty are sufficient in the ordioary course to point the finger at the appellant alone and none else. The law in relation to circumstantial evidence is well-settled. The circumstances forming evidence must conclusively establish the guilt. The question is whether the circumstances under which the incident took place and the circumstances on the basis of which the appellant was found guilty are sufficient in the ordioary course to point the finger at the appellant alone and none else. The law in relation to circumstantial evidence is well-settled. The circumstances forming evidence must conclusively establish the guilt. They must not only be consistent with the guilt but must also be consistent to thwart any reasonable hypothesis against it. 4. All the witnesses examined by the prosecution except the investigating officer and the constable who carried the sealed envelope for FSL report were declared hostile. PW 2 Bhik Singh has stated that on the relevant date he alongwith the accused was ploughing the field; at lunch-time they took meals prepared by him; he asked his bhabhi Jaya to take meals which she refused; after taking their meals, they again started ploughing the field; in the evening both of them returned to the house where he saw his sister-in-law's dead-body and the dantala lying beside her; the accused sat beside the dead-body of his wife and he (Bhik Singh) went to call his mother from the village. PW 5 Balwant Singh has stated that Bhik Singh met him and informed him about the death of Jaya and, thereafter, they went to the house of Bhik Singh; the accused was sitting beside the dead-body of the deceased Jaya. Thus the statement of PW 2 Bhik Singh is to the effect that in the evening he and his brother (the accused) together went to their house and there he saw the dead-body of Jaya. The prosecution has not brought on record any evidence to show that the accused was the last person seen with the deceased. Neither there is any evidence on record to show that at the time of incident the accused was present at the spot nor was he seen by anyone near the place of occurrence. Simply because the accused and the deceased were living together under one roof could not be a circumstance that he is the person who has assaulted the deceased. So far as keeping silent and not informing anybody as to who has committed the murder cannot be a circumstance which goes against the appellant. Simply because the accused and the deceased were living together under one roof could not be a circumstance that he is the person who has assaulted the deceased. So far as keeping silent and not informing anybody as to who has committed the murder cannot be a circumstance which goes against the appellant. If the person is not aware of the fact as to who has committed the crime he would not be in a position to tell the name of any person who committed the murder. Nor the circumstance that the accused did not raise a hue and cry clinching goes against him inasmuch as it depends on the nature of the individual. Some would shout some would not. Aghast, who behaves how is quite uncertain. A reasonable hypothesis against the guilt of the accused is further fortified by the fact that there is nothing on record of any post facto act of the accused which would unsparingly suggest the consciousness of the crime on the part of the accused. 5. To prove the recovery of the alleged weapon dantala on the information supplied by the accused, the prosecution examined PW 1 Ranjeet Singh who has stated that dantala which was lying beside the dead-body was taken by the Inspector and dantala was not shown by Hanwant Singh. PW 4 Peer Singh has stated that he does not know whether the dantala Art. 1 was seized by the police or not. In the cross-examination, on being declared hostile, he stated that the dantala was lying on the spot. The prosecution on its evidence has failed to prove that the dantala concealed was recovered at the instance of the accused appellant. On the contrary, the evidence is to the effect that the dantala was lying in the open beside the dead-body. As the dantala is not proved to have been recovered and seized at the instance of the appellant, the human-blood stains found on it will not prove the guilt of the appellant. The prosecution has not led any evidence to establish that Art. 1 dantala belonged to the accused-appellant. 6. As far as the first-information-report is concerned which is said to be lodged by the accused-appellant, it will fall in the category of confession or admission made to the police. The prosecution has not led any evidence to establish that Art. 1 dantala belonged to the accused-appellant. 6. As far as the first-information-report is concerned which is said to be lodged by the accused-appellant, it will fall in the category of confession or admission made to the police. Section 25, Evidence Act directs that confession made to a Police Officer under no circumstances is admissible in evidence against the accused. The section covers the confession made when the accused is free and not in police custody as also the one made before any investigation has begun. The FIR which is in the nature of confession having been made to the police is not admissible and thus cannot be relied upon. 7. Having given our anxious consideration to the evidence of the prosecution, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the appellant of committing murder of his wife Jaya. Having arrived at this conclusion, we allow the appeal. The conviction of the accused-appellant Under section 302, IPC is quashed and the sentence is set aside. The appellant is on bail. His bail-bonds stand discharged.Appeal Allowed. *******