JUDGMENT - VISHNU SAHAI, J.:---Through this appeal, the appellant challenges the judgment and order dated 30-10-1987, passed by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, in Sessions Case No. 215/1986, convicting and sentencing him in the manner stated hereinafter :--- (i) Under section 302 I.P.C. to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- i.d. R.I. for 6 months. (ii) Under section 201 I.P.C.) But, imposing no sentence. (iii) Under section 364 I.P.C.) Along with the appellant, was tried his real brother Bhagwan Maruti Yalpale, but, he has been acquitted vide the impugned judgment. 2.In short, the prosecution case runs as under :--- The deceased Suman was the wife of the appellant. She was married to the appellant about 10 years prior to the incident. After the marriage, she resided with him and his brother Bhagwan in a hut in village Ajnale Taluka, Sangola, District Solapur for a period of about five to six months. Thereafter, the appellant turned her out and she started living with her parents Eknath and Ms. Kalavati P.Ws. 2 and 3 respectively in the same village. After some time, she moved an application for maintenance in the Court of the JMFC, Sangola. The said application was decided in her favour and the appellant was directed to pay her a monthly maintenance of Rs. 60/-. The evidence is that the appellant went up in revision against the order directing him to pay maintenance but, the revision was dismissed. Sometimes prior to the incident, the appellant had got employment as a Primary teacher in village Sonand, which was about 8 kms. from village Ajnale. Consequently, Suman felt that she should get the maintenance allowance enhanced. She even visited the school to find out his salary. The evidence is that just before the incident, the appellant agreed that Suman should live with him. It has come in evidence that on 7-2-1986, sometimes in the evening, Suman left her parent's place for living with the appellant. It has come in the evidence of P.W. 4 Anjubai Pujari who resided on the eastern side of village Ajnale, that the same evening, she saw Suman along with the appellant and the former told her that she was going to stay with the appellant. It has come in the evidence of P.W. 4 Anjubai Pujari who resided on the eastern side of village Ajnale, that the same evening, she saw Suman along with the appellant and the former told her that she was going to stay with the appellant. The evidence shows that after the evening of 7-2-1986, Suman was not seen alive and when Anjubai and others, asked the appellant as to where she was, he refused to say anything about her whereabouts. 3.The evidence of Eknath and Ms. Kalavati shows that they searched for Suman but, could not find her. On 12-3-1986, Eknath gave an application to P.I. Sangola alleging therein that Suman was missing since 7-2-1986 and voicing therein suspicion against the appellant. 4.The F.I.R. of the incident was lodged by Ms. Kalavati, mother of Suman on 19-3-1986, at police station, Sangola. In the F.I.R. the prosecution story as set forth in paragraph 2 has been mentioned. The same day, the appellant and his brother, the acquitted accused Bhagwan, were arrested. On 20-3-1986, P.S.I. Jagannath Jadhav, P.W. 14, of Sangola Police Station, who was investigating the case, moved an application at 10.15 a.m. before the J.M.F.C., Sangola, praying therein that the appellant and the co-accused Bhagwan be remanded to police custody for a period of seven days. The reason for the remand set out therein was as follows :--- "The accused No. 1 abducted his wife deceased Suman @ Manda Shankar Yelpale, and kidnapped her and accused No. 1 and 2 with common intention committed murder by means of dagger and sickle and cut into pieces and filled it in gunny bags and have thrown it in the tank at Ajnale due to the facts that as per settlement of the marriage, the land was not transferred in their favour and that an amount of maintenance will be required to be given to her. It is necessary to recover the weapons and the clothes on the person of the accused used at the time of commission of the said offence. Hence, both the accused be granted police custody remand for 7 days from 20-3-1986. The accused are sent herewith under proper escort. Submitted on 20-3-86 S/d P.S.I" The said application was allowed vide an order which .reads thus: "Both the accused produced before me at 10-15 a.m. No complaint. Remand in P.C. till 26-3-1986. Hence, both the accused be granted police custody remand for 7 days from 20-3-1986. The accused are sent herewith under proper escort. Submitted on 20-3-86 S/d P.S.I" The said application was allowed vide an order which .reads thus: "Both the accused produced before me at 10-15 a.m. No complaint. Remand in P.C. till 26-3-1986. S/d 20-3-86." 5.It is alleged by the prosecution that while in police custody, recoveries were made, pursuant to the information given by the appellant and the co-accused Bhagwan. On 20-3-1986, between 11 to 11.15 a.m. the appellant told P.S.I. Yadav that he could show the place where he had made pieces of the body of Suman. Consequently, P.S.I. Yadav along with the appellant, public panch, Shivaji Shinde, P.W. 7, and police personnel in a Government jeep, proceeded on Solapur-Miraj Road. After they had travelled some distance and had reached the limits of village Ajnale, the appellant asked the jeep to be stopped. He along with the police personnel, proceeded towards the bund. They reached a babul tree. He stated that at that place, he had murdered Suman. From that place, pieces of small stones smeared with blood and blood-stained earth were taken into possession under a panchanama. At about 12.30 p.m. to 12.35 p.m. the same day, the appellant told P.S.I. Yadav that after cutting the body of Suman into pieces, he and his brother Bhagwan had put it in three gunny bags and thrown it in the tank near the temple of Masadevi. Consequently, along with police personnel, public panchas, and the appellant P.S.I. Yadav went to the tank. From the tank, in the presence of public panch, Shivaji Shinde, and some police personnel, three gunny bags containing pieces of dead body of Suman were recovered under a panchanama, It is said that the same day, co-accused Bhagwan made a voluntary statement that he had concealed the blood stained clothes in his house. The clothes were recovered under a panchanama on the pointing out of Bhagwan. We are not going into deeper into this recovery, because, he has been acquitted by the trial Court and his acquittal has not been challenged by the State of Maharashtra. 6.On 27-3-1986, on the pointing out of the appellant, a knife was recovered from the tank near the temple of Masadevi. We are not going into deeper into this recovery, because, he has been acquitted by the trial Court and his acquittal has not been challenged by the State of Maharashtra. 6.On 27-3-1986, on the pointing out of the appellant, a knife was recovered from the tank near the temple of Masadevi. A perusal of the recovery panchanama shows that one of the panchas of the recovery was Sattar Nadaf, P.W. 10. It also shows that on the said knife, there was no blood. 7.After completion of the investigation, the appellant and his brother Bhagwan were charge-sheeted by P.S.I. Bhimrao Akaram Chache, P.W. 12, who did a very small part of the investigation in the final stages. 8.The case was committed to the Court of Sessions in the usual manner. |n the trial Court, the appellant and his brother Bhagwan were charged for offences punishable under sections 364, 302, and 201 r/w 34 I.P.C. To the said charges, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Their defence was of denial. In the trial Court, the prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses. We may straight away mention that there is no eye-witness of the incident and the case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence. The trial Court found the circumstantial evidence against co-accused Bhagwan to be slender and consequently, acquitted him. However, in relation to the appellant, it found the chain of circumstances to be complete and hence, convicted and sentenced him in the manner stated in para 1. 9.We have heard Mr. P.P. Hudlikar and Mr. T.E. Mane for the appellant and Mr. S.R. Borulkar, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State of Maharashtra-respondent. We have also perused the depositions of the prosecution witnesses; the material Exhibits, proved by the prosecution; and the impugned judgment. After thoughtfully reflecting over the matter, we are satisfied that this appeal must succeed. 10.The circumstantial evidence on which the conviction of the appellant is founded is enumerated hereinafter :--- (i) Motive (ii) Last seen (iii) Conduct of the appellant in giving evasive replies to Anjubai Pujari, P.W. 4, when she asked him about the whereabouts of the deceased Suman. (iv) Recoveries at the instance of the appellant. 10.The circumstantial evidence on which the conviction of the appellant is founded is enumerated hereinafter :--- (i) Motive (ii) Last seen (iii) Conduct of the appellant in giving evasive replies to Anjubai Pujari, P.W. 4, when she asked him about the whereabouts of the deceased Suman. (iv) Recoveries at the instance of the appellant. 11.We may straight away mention that the circumstance of last seen, cannot be relied upon because, in respect of the same, there is the solitary statement of Anjubai Pujari, P.W. 4, and we are satisfied that there is a very strong likelihood of her being a got-up-witness. In this context, it would be useful to advert to her cross-examination wherein she admitted that she was detained at the police station for three days; was beaten and ill-treated there; and her statement was recorded three times. We feel that in view of this admission of Anjubai, it would be extremely unsafe to accept her testimony and consequently, we reject the circumstance of last seen. 12.The circumstance of incriminating conduct of the appellant namely when Anjubai asked the appellant, as to where Suman was, he appeared to be nervous and did not answer, also does not inspire any confidence. In her cross-examination, Anjubai has categorically admitted that she had stated before the police, that when she enquired from the appellant about the whereabouts of the deceased, Suman, he was nervous. However, when she was confronted with the fact that she had not stated this in her statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. she replied that she could give no answer as to why it was not there in her said statement. Hence, we are not inclined to place any reliance on the said circumstance. 13.We are not inclined to place any reliance on the evidence of recoveries either. In paragraph 4 of this judgment, we have reproduced in entirety that part of the remand application dated 20-3-1986, wherein the reasons for the remand are contained. A perusal of the reasons given by P.S.I. Yadav, in the remand application shows that he already knew that the deceased had been done to death by a dagger and a sickle and her body after being cut into pieces, was filled in gunny bags and thrown in a tank at Ajnale. There is no evidence to show that he learnt this after interrogating the appellant and co-accused Bhagwan prior to their police remand. There is no evidence to show that he learnt this after interrogating the appellant and co-accused Bhagwan prior to their police remand. This being so, the recovery of the pieces of corpse contained in the three gunny bags and a knife, from the tank, would not legally be in pursuance of the information given by the appellant, as contemplated by section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, because, P.S.I. Yadav, already knew where the gunny bags and the knife were. A perusal of paragraph 5 of our judgment, would show that the recovery of the pieces of corpse of the deceased and the knife, was subsequent to 10-15 a.m. (on 20-6-1986) the time when the police remand of the appellant and co-accused Bhagwan was granted by the JMFC, Sangola. The claim of the prosecution that the said recoveries were made pursuant to the information given by the appellant is a tissue of lies and we are not prepared to swallow it. In our view, P.S.I. Yadav already knew where the gunny bags and knife were and the appellant was merely made a scape-goat. The second reason as to why we are not inclined to place reliance on the evidence of recoveries, is that the public panchas Shivaji, P.W. 7 and Sattar Nadaf, P.W. 10 appear to be professional panchas. This has even been accepted by the learned trial Judge in para 18 of the impugned judgment. It is significant to point out that the recovery memo of knife does not show that there was any blood on it. The knife was sent to the Chemical Analyst who found human blood on it. Presence of human blood on knife is something which the prosecution has failed to explain. We feel that the hypothesis on which it can be explained is that the knife recovered was not the knife sent to the Chemical Analyst. In the peculiar facts of this case, in our view, it would be hazardous to accept the recovery evidence on the testimony of the public panchas and on that of P.S.I. Yadav, P.W. 14. 14.Since we have not accepted the circumstances of the appellant and the deceased being last seen, together, the incriminating conduct of the appellant and recoveries on his pointing out, the only circumstance which remains against the appellant, is that of motive and that is not sufficient to sustain his conviction. 14.Since we have not accepted the circumstances of the appellant and the deceased being last seen, together, the incriminating conduct of the appellant and recoveries on his pointing out, the only circumstance which remains against the appellant, is that of motive and that is not sufficient to sustain his conviction. 15.In the result, this appeal is allowed. The conviction of the appellant for the offences under sections 302,201 and 364 I.P.C. is set aside. He is acquitted of the said offences. We find that no separate sentence has been awarded to the appellant for the offences under section 364, and 201 I.P.C. We set aside his sentence for the offence under section 302 I.P.C. In case he has paid the fine, it shall refunded to him. The appellant is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled and sureties discharged. In case an application for a certified copy of this judgment is made by the Counsel for the parties, the same shall be issued on an expedited basis. Appeal allowed.