Judgment Loknath Prasad and N.N.Singh JJ. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction recorded by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Chaibasa, in S.T. No. 82 of 1990 through which the sole appellant was found guilty u/s. 302 of Indian Penal Code and was convicted and sentenced there under to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and further the appellant was also found guilty u/s. 201 of Indian Penal Code, but no separate sentence was passed under this count. 2. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 12-7-1989, blood stain marks were found near the handpump situated within the PHED, office compound of Itihasa village within Toklo P.S. by some females of the village and the appellant was found removing those bloodstains and as such, the matter was reported to Chaukidar (PW-4), the informant, who in turn, collected some witnesses namely as to Chandra Nayak (PW-7), Prahalad Nayak (PW-3) Mangru Thathera PW-6, went to the P.H.E.D. compound and found drops of blood and also dragging marks which led to the septic tank, which was opened and the dead-body of a female namely Chand Muni Sardarin was detected. The village Chaukidar immediately, on the same day, reported the matter to the police station about recovery of the dead body and the Police made a station diary entry and on the next day (13-7-1989) Sub-Inspector of Police came to the place of the occurrence at Itihasa and recorded fard-beyan of PW-1 Kankdhar Nayak. 3. The investigation was taken up immediately after recording of the fard-beyan by the Sub-Inspector of Police and the dead body was recovered from the septic tank, an inquest report was prepared and the dead body was sent to Chaibasa for post mortem, After completion of the investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against this appellant. 4. The appellant claimed himself to be innocent and denied his complicity in the occurrence, but has not set up any specific defence version. The trial Court believed the prosecution case and found the appellant guilty and convicted and sentenced the appellant, as indicated above and being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 5. Two prove the case on behalf of the prosecution, as many as 10 witnesses have been examined, but PW-1, the informant of this case has not totally supported the prosecution case and therefore, he was declared hostile. 5. Two prove the case on behalf of the prosecution, as many as 10 witnesses have been examined, but PW-1, the informant of this case has not totally supported the prosecution case and therefore, he was declared hostile. Similarly, the other important witness on the point of extrajudicial confession. Le. PW-3 Prahalad Nayak and PW-5 Ranjeet Rajak were also declared hostile. PW-2, Haricharan Pramanik and PW-6 Mangru That hera are only two witnesses who supported the extra judicial confession of the appellant, whereas PW-7 A.C. Nayak had also been declared hostile and PW-8 is Dr. B. K. Singh, who held post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and PW-9 Domo Sardar is, more or less, a formal witness and PW-10 is the Investigating Officer of this case. 6. The appellant has not denied the factum of the murder of the deceased Chand Muni Sardarin. According to the prosecution case, the deceased was done to death on the night of 11-7-1989. From the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and other witness, including the Investigating Officer of this case, this fact is well proved that the dead body of the deceased was detected in the septic tank on 12-7-1989 itself and the investigating officer recovered the dead body in the morning of 13-7-1989. The septic tank was situated within the compound of PRED Office at Itihasa and admittedly, the appellant was also living in that very compound with his family members and he was doing the work of a Chaukidar. 7. Admittedly, nobody had seen the appellant committing the murder of the deceased and according to the prosecution case, there are only circumstantial evidence and extra-judicial confession of the appellant. So far as the circumstantial evidence is concerned, according to the prosecution case and the evidence of PW -4 Lakhan Nayak who got information about the concurrence first of all, and the village Chaukidar, the wife of Chaya Nayak, in fact, informed him that she had seen the appellant removing bloodstains near the hand-pump situated within the PHED office compound and that when she came, she was also threatened by the appellant who asked her to go away. But surprisingly, the wife of Chaya, who is the most important witness on this point has not been examined. But surprisingly, the wife of Chaya, who is the most important witness on this point has not been examined. Further more, not a single witness could be examined from the side of the prosecution to show that the conduct and the action of the appellant was suspicious and initially, suspicion was against this appellant only for the reason that he had made attempt to remove the blood stains, which is one of the evidenced of murder. So the most important chain of the prosecution i.e. the entire prosecution story has not been proved or established, or even no attempt was made to lead evidence on this point. 8. The other important circumstances is that the appellant handed over his blood stained shirt to the Investigating Officer (PW-10) who claimed that the appellant handed over his blood stained shirt and the (PW-10) prepared the seizure list (Ext.5) in presence of Pws 1 and 4who simply stated that shirt was seized from the house of the appellant and that they did not state that it was handed over by the appellant himself. Ext. 5/1 also indicates that the shirt was seized from the house of the appellant and it was not produced by him. Admittedly, though the shirt was sent to the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), no report was produced to show that it contained the blood stains and even the shirt was not produced in court to show and prove the extent of blood stains on the said shirt. Thus, the other important circumstantial evideuce is also missing. 9. The prosecution has heavily relied on the extrajudicial confessional statement made by the appellant and it appears that the conviction was recorded mainly on the ground of the extra judicial confession. PW-2 Hart Charan Pramanik and PW-6 Mangru Thathera are only two witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution to prove that when the suspicion was against the appellant because the sign of dragging and some blood stains were found in the PHED office compound, then this appellant was interrogated and he confessed his guilty that he had committed murder of the deceased in the night of 11-7 -1989 by hitting her with a stone on her head, and dragged the dead body and concealed it in the septic tank within the compound. But the evidence of PW s 2 and 6 is not very convincing for the reason that PW-2 had stated that in the evening of 12-7-1989, he detected blood marks and assemblage of the people within the office compound and then they had gone near the septic tank and detected the dead body, whereas the evidence of PW-6 is otherwise that in the morning the dead body was dated on the basis of blood marks and the chaukidar was also asked to the police station to report the matter. Moreover, the extrajudicial confession cannot be sole basis for recording the order of conviction of the appellant, if the other surrounding circumstances and the materials available on the record do not suggest the complicity of the appellant. Moreover, so-called extra judicial confession as has been made by the appellant and claimed by the PWs 2 and 6 also appears to be doubtful and suspicious. These two witnesses had clearly heated that the appellant had disclosed them that he assaulted the deceased with a stone on her head, which resulted in her death and then the dead body was dragged and concealed in the septic tank in the night of 11-7-1989. Admittedly, the dead body was discovered on 12- 7 -1989 and the post mortem was conducted on 14-7-1989, but PW-8 Dr. B.K. Singh who held post mortem, had clearly stated that no sign of injury or cause of death could be detected. It was contended by the counsel for the prosecution that according to the doctor, PW- 8, the dead body was highly decomposed and in that view of the matter the doctor could not detect any injury. It is really surprising that according to the prosecution, the deceased was done to death in the night of 11-7 -1989 and the dead body was recovered from the tank in the morning of 13-7 -1982 and on the next day, post mortem was done. Still, the doctor claimed that the dead body was highly decomposed. If at all, the death was due to injury caused by stone on the head (skull), then; in all probability, the doctor should have detected the marks of violence on the bones or skull, but that has not been detected, which clearly indicates that the death was not due to hit on the head by stone, as claimed by the, appellant in his extra judicial confession. Moreover, the doctor has claimed that according to him, the death of the deceased took place some time on 8-7-1989 or 9-7-1989, which also belies the prosecution case that the deceased was done to death on 11-7-1989. So the evidence of the doctor, (PW-8), completely demolishes the prosecution case that the appellant had made extrajudicial confession, and that too before PWs 2 and 6. 10. If the extrajudicial confession appears to be suspicious for the reasons mentioned above and the prosecution has also not been able to establish the entire chain of the circumstances, which give an impression about the complicity of the appellant, then in such situation, we are of the opinion that the recording of order of conviction and sentence by the trial court is, unjustified. 11. For the reasons aforesaid, we allow this appeal and set aside the order of conviction and sentence of the appellant by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge. Chaibasa, in S.T. No. 82 of 1990. and the appellant is acquitted of the charge under Secs. 302/201 of Indian Penal Code. The appellant is in custody. He is directed to be released forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case(s).