N. P. SINGH. J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 7-12-1987 in S. T. No. 99/87. by IVth Addi. Sessions Judge Durg; whereby the accused/appellants have been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of I. P. C. and they have been sentenced u/sec. 302. I. P. C. to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. five hundred and u/sec. 201, I. P. C. to R. I. for seven years and to pay fine of Rs. two hundred. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case stated in brief is that the deceased Duleshwari Bai was the first wife of accused/appellant No. 1 Khorbahara while accused/appellant No. 2 is his second wife. The deceased was married to appellant No. 1 about 12-13 years back. Relations between the accused/appellant No. 1 Khorbahara and deceased Duleshwari Bai were strained on account of which the accused/appellant No. 1 Khorbahara had turned her out after about two years of their marriage; where-after she lived with her brother Amar Singh (P. W. 1), for a considerable period. Thereafter, accused/appellant No. 1 Khorbahara pad married accused/appellant No. 2 Khetiharin Bai. Subsequently, on account of intervention by some persons, accused/appellant No. 1 Khorbahara and deceased Duleshwari Bai reunited and started to reside together. ( 3 ) THE accused/appellant No. 1 Khorbahara lodged a report at Police Station, Ranchirai which was recorded in Sanhat on 9-5-1987 that his wife Duleshwari Bai (deceased) was missing. Thereafter, Amar Singh (P. W. 1) had lodged a report (Ex. P. 18), dated 28-5-1985, which was recorded as Dehatimerg intimation. During enquiry, accused/appellant No. 1 Khorbahara, in the presence of villagers, disclosed that he and his second wife accused/appellant No. 2 Khetiharin Bai, had taken deceased Duleshwari Bai to their field ostensibly for cultivation operations, and the appellants then had forcibly thrown deceased Duleshwari Bai in a pit already dug by them; and had throttled and buried her in their field. ( 4 ) ON the aforesaid information being given, the police made an application (Ex. P. 11) to S. D. M. H. P. Kindo (P. W. 9) for permission to exhume the dead body of Duleshwari Bai. The permission was granted. A memo (Ex. PA) u/sec. ( 4 ) ON the aforesaid information being given, the police made an application (Ex. P. 11) to S. D. M. H. P. Kindo (P. W. 9) for permission to exhume the dead body of Duleshwari Bai. The permission was granted. A memo (Ex. PA) u/sec. 27 of Evidence Act of accused/ appellant No. 1 Khorbahara was recorded on 30-5-1987 and the dead body wasthere-after dug-out from the field of the, accused/appellants in the presence of Dr. P. K. Agrawal (P. W. 5) and Dr. C. B. G. upta. The panchnama (Ex. R. 12), regarding proceedings of exhumation of dead body was prepared. The dead body was in the form of a skelton. Some silver ornaments including a Hamel (necklace) was found on the skelton. A key was tied with the Hamel (necklace ). By the said key the box of deceased Duleshwari Bai was opened the box was seized as per seizure memo (Ex. P. 7 ). It was thus established that the skeleton was of Duleshwari Bai (deceased ). The accused/appellants were arrested. The seized articles including the blood stained and ordinary soil and clothes of the deceased, etc. were sent for chemical examination to Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar, as per memo Ex. P. 15, from where the report (Ex. P. 16) was received. After completion of usual formalities during investigation charge-sheet has filed. ( 5 ) THE learned trial court after appreciation of evidence on record held that the charges framed against the accused/ appellants are proved beyond reasonable doubt, and accordingly convicted and sentenced them as has been mentioned above. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the accused/appellants has mainly urged that the memo (Ex. P A) prepared on 305-1987 by the police, leading to the discovery and exhumation of dead body in the field of accused/ appellants is of no assistance to the prosecution; in view of the fact that the police had already gained knowledge of the fact that the dead body of the deceased Duleshwari Bai, was buried in the field of accused/appellants, as per earlier information given by the accused/appellant Khorbahara on 28-5-1987 to the Panchas in the village. It has, therefore, been urged that the alleged statement (Ex. It has, therefore, been urged that the alleged statement (Ex. PA) made by the accused/appellant No. 1 Khorbahara, cannot be used as against him, and since there is no other evidence to incriminate him with the offence with which accused/ appellants are charged they deserve to be acquitted. ( 7 ) HOWEVER, the learned counsel for the State/respondent has supported the judgment of the trial court and has urged that, in view of the statement made by the accused/appellant No. 1 Khorbahara before the Panchas on 285-1987; while he was in custody, and in view of the subsequent discovery of the dead body of deceased Duleshwari Bai from the field of accused/appellant No. 1 Khorbahara it is established that he had the knowledge about it and he had offered no explanation regarding the dead body being found buried in his fields as above. ( 8 ) IT is not disputed before us that the skelton which was exhumed from the field of accused/appellants, was that of the deceased Duleshwari Bal This fact is also established from the evidence led in the case. The statement of Investigating Officer Suresh Kumar Choubey (P. W. 8) would indicate that there was a Hamel (necklace) found on the skelton, dug-out from the field and a key was tied with the said Hamel (necklace ). Lock of the box of deceased Duleshwari Bai kept in. her house was opened with the said key. It is clear therefore, that the skelton found in the filed of accused/appellants was that of Duleshwari Bal ( 9 ) NOW, we shall advert to the evidence leading to the recovery of the skelton. It is clear that Ex. P. 4, which purports to be a memo of appellant No. 1 Khorbahara under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, has been recorded on 305-1987. However, as per the prosecution evidence, on 28-5-1987 itself there was an application (Ex. P. 11) made to the S. D. M. H. P. Kindo (P. W. 9) for permission to exhume the dead body of Duleshwari Bai mentioning that it was buried in the field of appellants. That being so, it is abundantly clear that prior to Ex. P. 4 dated 30-5-1987, having been recorded, the police had already an information of the fact that the dead body of Duleshwari Bai was buried in the accused/appellant's field. Therefore, the statement (Ex. That being so, it is abundantly clear that prior to Ex. P. 4 dated 30-5-1987, having been recorded, the police had already an information of the fact that the dead body of Duleshwari Bai was buried in the accused/appellant's field. Therefore, the statement (Ex. P4) made by accused/appellant No. 1 Khorbahara cannot be said to be a statement on the basis of which discovery of the said fact has been made. ( 10 ) HOWEVER, it may be noted in the above connection that admittedly on 28-5-1987, while accused/appellants were in custody of the police the accused/appellant No. 1 Khorbahara had made a statement to the Panchasthat the dead body of deceased Duleshwari Bai, was buried in his field. This is evidenced by the statements of Amar Singh (P. W. 1), Puranikram (P. W. 2) as well as Makhanlal (P. W. 4 ). Though other incriminating statements and extra-judicial confession was also made by accused/appellant No. 1 Khorbahara before the Panchas; but the same would not be admissible in evidence in view the provisions of Sections 26 and 27 of the Evidence Act. as accused/appellant No. 1 appears to have been in custody of the police, at the time of making such statement. Therefore, only that part of statement of accused/appellant No. 1 Khorbahara can be taken into consideration by which the fact of the dead body being buried in his field was discovered. From that part of statement of accused/ appellant No. 1, it would appear that he had the knowledge about the dead body being buried in his fields. ( 11 ) THEREFORE it is clear from the above facts that the accused! appellant No. 1 Khorbahara despite his knowledge that the dead body of Duleshwari Bai (deceased) was buried in his field had lodged the report of missing of his wife Duleshwari Bai to the police obviously in order to mislead the police and to safeguard himself. He has offered no explanation for his conduct as above, which he owed in the circumstances. ( 12 ) IN view of the above it is clear that the dead body of deceased who met with a homicidal death as has been found after appreciation of evidence by the learned Trial Court was found buried in the field of the accused/appellant No. 1. Khorbahara. The accused,/appellant No. 1 has not offered any explanation for his knowledge. ( 12 ) IN view of the above it is clear that the dead body of deceased who met with a homicidal death as has been found after appreciation of evidence by the learned Trial Court was found buried in the field of the accused/appellant No. 1. Khorbahara. The accused,/appellant No. 1 has not offered any explanation for his knowledge. This is a very strong circumstance against him to connect him with the crime. It would appear therefore, that the finding in this regard of the learned Trial Court cannot be said to be erroheous and deserves to be confirmed: ( 13 ) HOWEVER, so far as accused! appellant No. 2 Khetiharin Bai is concerned there is no legal and admissible evidence as against her and there are no circumstances in the case which would unerringly point out to her guilt. Therefore, conviction of accused/appellant No. 2 Khetiharin Bai cannot be sustained. ( 14 ) ACCORDINGLY the appeal of accused/appellant No. 1 Khorbahara is dismissed. His conviction and sentence is maintained. He is on bail. He should surrender to his bail bonds to serve out the remaining part of the sentence and should appear before the C. J. M. Durg on or before 30-5-1997. However, so far as accused/appellant No. 2 is concerned her appeal is allowed and her conviction and sentence are set aside and she is acquitted. She is on bail. Her ball bond and surety bond shall stand discharged. Appeal disposed of accordingly. .