PURAN LAL v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH — 1997 DIGILAW 59 (ALL)

P. K. JAIN, J. ( 1 ) APPELLANT Puran Lal S/o Sri Hem Raj, resident of Dhoura Police Station Gaujraula District Pilibhit has preferred the present appeal against the judgment and order dated 2-8-1994 passed by Sessions Judge Naini Tal in S. T. No. 222 of 1989 convicting the appellant under Sections 302, 201, I. P. C. and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302, I. P. C. and rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 (five) years under Section 201, I. P. C. ( 2 ) BRIEF facts giving rise in the present appeal are that the appellant Puran Lal and deceased Jugal were working as labourers at Cheema Farm within local limits of police out post Majhola, Police Station Khatima, District Naini Tal. According to the prosecution story the accused was living with his family while Jugal was living alone. It is alleged that the accused suspected of development of illicit relations between the deceased and his (accuseds) wife. On 12-4-1989 at about 7-8 p. m. the accused was seen going out of the Farm in the company of the deceased. The accused Puran Lal returned to the Farm some time thereafter. But Jugal did not return. The matter was reported to the Manager of the Farm Sri Har Bhajan Singh (P. W. 6) A search was made for Jugal but on 13-4-1989 he could not be traced out. On 14-4-1989 on further search being made headless body of Jugal was found lying at the bank of lake near the Cheema Farm. ( 3 ) THE first informant Jitayee Miyan who also worked as the labourer got the first information report (Ex. Ka. 3) scribed by one Brij Bihari Lal and lodged the same at out post Majhola at 2. 30 p. m. on 14-4-1989. A case was registered under Sections 302, 201, I. P. C. The investigation of the case was taken up by S. I. Sri Harish Chandra Singh (P. W. 10) who was posted as S. I. incharge at the said police out-post. ( 4 ) THE investigating officer recorded the statement of the Head Moharrir and first informant Jitayee Miyan. Thereafter he proceeded to the scene where the dead body was lying. He held the inquest on the dead body and prepared the inquest report and other relevant papers. The body was sealed and sent for post mortem examination. ( 4 ) THE investigating officer recorded the statement of the Head Moharrir and first informant Jitayee Miyan. Thereafter he proceeded to the scene where the dead body was lying. He held the inquest on the dead body and prepared the inquest report and other relevant papers. The body was sealed and sent for post mortem examination. Thereafter he inspected the place where the dead body was found. After completion of these formalities, the investigating officer went to Cheema Farm, where, in presence of Har Bhajan Singh, the accused have confessional statement. The accused made the statement before the I. O. confessing the guilt and stating that the weapon used in commission of the crime, head of the deceased and clothes of the deceased were concealed by him, which he could get recovered. The appellant was arrested by the Investigating Officer and in presence of the witnesses Sri Ram Rekha and Bhadai, the appellant produced "banka", weapon allegedly used in the Commission of the crime, severed head of the deceased, Tahmad, Baniyan, Shirt, Gamcha and Chappal the deceased from near the Bank of the lake and at a distance of 40 paces from the place from where truncated dead body was found. The investigating officer prepared the memo. Thereafter he recorded statements of other witnesses and after completion of the investigation submitted the charge sheet under Sections 302 and 201, I. P. C. against the appellant. ( 5 ) POST-MORTEM examination on the body of the deceased was performed by Dr. S. R. Gupta (P. W. 1) on 15-4-1989 at 3 p. m. He had found the following ante mortem injuries :- (1) Incised wound passing through and through upper part of neck below both the ears. Both the remis of mandible cut, fracture of mandible present. Except one III Molar tooth of right side all teeth were present at the attached portion of lower jaw. Wound measured 54 CM in circumstance passing at the level of 2nd vertebrae, 2nd vertebrae cut. (2) Incised wound over the right side of neck 15 CM x 5 CM muscle deep passing obliquely from lateral portion in front to downward and backward. (3) Incised wound over the front of right shoulder with top of crest muscle measuring 7 CM x 5 CM muscle deep. ( 6 ) IN the opinion of the Dr. (2) Incised wound over the right side of neck 15 CM x 5 CM muscle deep passing obliquely from lateral portion in front to downward and backward. (3) Incised wound over the front of right shoulder with top of crest muscle measuring 7 CM x 5 CM muscle deep. ( 6 ) IN the opinion of the Dr. the death was about 23/4 days old Rigor Mortis had passed off, the dead body. Greenish-discolouration was present all over the body. Blisters were present and skin was peeling off. Abdomen was distended. Scrotum and pegis swolled up maggots were crawling over the wound. Hairs were loose. The Dr. had opined that the death was as a result of shock and haemorhage due to ante-mortem injuries. He prepared the ante-mortem report (Ex. Ka-1 ). ( 7 ) THE same day at 4 p. m. Dr. held autospy on the head of the deceased. On external examination he had found that the hairs easily pulled from the scalp. The skin of the face was peeling out. He had found following ante-mortem injuries :- Incised wound passing through and through measuring 54 C. M. in circumference passing below both the ear. Rami of the mandible, cut, III molar tooth was attached on right part. Rami of left side of mandible was cut. Fracture of upper jaw left side Ist vertebrae and part of 2nd vertebrae was attached to the head. The doctor had prepared the post mortem report (Ex. Ka-2 ). ( 8 ) ON the material found during the investigation the trial Court framed the charges under Sections 302 and 201, I. P. C. The appellant denied the charges and claimed to be tried. The charges were reframed on 26-7-1994 by the learned sessions Judge who finally disposed of the case. ( 9 ) THE appellant denied the prosecution allegation. In statement under Section 313, Cr. P. C. he admitted to be working at the Cheema Farm and stated that Cheema, the manager of the Farm wanted him to go to Chandigarh and work at his house. He (appellant) refused to go to Chandigarh on account of which he falsely involved him in the present case. He further stated that he had been apprehended by the police at 7 p. m. ( 10 ) THE prosecution to bring home the charges against the appellant examined (P. W. 1) Dr. He (appellant) refused to go to Chandigarh on account of which he falsely involved him in the present case. He further stated that he had been apprehended by the police at 7 p. m. ( 10 ) THE prosecution to bring home the charges against the appellant examined (P. W. 1) Dr. S. R. Gupta, (P. W. 2) Jiyayee Miyan, the first informant, (P. W. 3) Ram Jeet a witness of circumstances, (P. W. 4) constable Amar Singh formal witness, (P. W. 5) Raghuvir Narain who was then head Moharrir at out-post Majohola and had scribed the check report (Ex. Ka. 6) and G. D. entry copy of which is (Ka. 7), (P. W. 6) Har Bhajan Singh, a witness before whom extra judicial confession was allegedly made by the appellant, (P. W. 7) Ram Ashrey Singh who had completed the investigation and submitted the chargesheet (Ex. Ka 8), (P. W. 8) Ram Rekha witness of circumstantial evidence, (P. W. 8) Bhadai also a witness of circumstantial evidence and P. W. 10 Harish Chandra Singh the original investigating Officer. ( 11 ) THE appellant did not examine any witness in his defence nor did he file any documentary evidence. ( 12 ) THE trial court believed the evidence of the prosecution and accordingly convicted and sentence the appellant as stated above. ( 13 ) WE have beard Sri P. N. Lal, Learned counsel for the appellant and learned A. G. A. for the State. ( 14 ) IT is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the trial court has failed to appreciate the prosecution evidence properly as also the legal position in a case based upon circumstantial evidence. No definite finding has been given by the trial Court as to what circumstances have been established by the prosecution and in any case, the circumstantial evidence adduced does not lead to the irresistible conclusion consistent with the guilt of the accused. The Court below erred in accepting evidence of extra judicial confession and evidence of discovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The evidence of extra judicial confession is not convincing and the evidence of discovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act could not be relied upon. The Court below erred in accepting evidence of extra judicial confession and evidence of discovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The evidence of extra judicial confession is not convincing and the evidence of discovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act could not be relied upon. It is contended that in any case the prosecution evidence does not inspire confidence and does not complete the chain of circumstances so as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. ( 15 ) THE learned A. G. A. argued that the circumstantial evidence and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is unassailable and the chain of the circumstances is complete which leads to no other hypothesis except that of guilt of the accused and hence the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant. ( 16 ) AS has been seen above there is no direct evidence and the case of the prosecution is based solely upon the circumstantial evidence, the evidence of confession and evidence of discovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The circumstances which the prosecution has sought to prove are. 1. The motive which is disclosed from the extra judicial confession allegedly made by the appellant to P. W. 6. 2. That the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused. 3. That after the appellant was arrested by the investigating officer, he made the statement in consequence of which certain fact was discovered. 4. Extra judicial confession. ( 17 ) BEFORE we discuss the evidence on record in the light of the argument advanced by the parties counsel, we may point out that the standard of proof required to convict a person on circumstantial evidence is well established by a series of decisions of the apex Court. It has been consistently, held that before a conviction can be recorded on circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests;1. The circumstances from which the guilt is sought to be proved must be cogently and firmly established. 2. The chain of evidence furnished by the circumstance must be complete so as not to leave a reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with innocence of the accused. In other words the circumstances cumulatively taken should lead to the irresistible conclusion that the crime was committed by the accused and none else. 2. The chain of evidence furnished by the circumstance must be complete so as not to leave a reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with innocence of the accused. In other words the circumstances cumulatively taken should lead to the irresistible conclusion that the crime was committed by the accused and none else. ( 18 ) ON scrutinising the evidence on record, perusing the judgment of the trial Court, we find that the trial Court has over-looked these basic principles relating to the appreciation of the circumstantial evidence. The trial Court narrated the facts and the statements of the witnesses, and thereafter leaped to the conclusion that the evidence of the prosecution evidence is reliable. The Court below observed in its judgment at page 10. "i accordingly find that the statement of Ram Jeet (P. W. 3) who had seen the deceased going in the company of the accused, the statement of Sri Harbhajan Singh (P. W. 6), Farm Manager of Cheema Farm that the accused had confessed to have killed the deceased before him and the statement of Sri Ram Rekha (P. W. 8) and Sri Bhadai (P. W. 9) regarding the recovery of the head of the deceased on the pointing out of the accused had recovered the head of the deceased as also the clothes of the deceased and banka with which the accused had committed the murder of the deceased. His statement, therefore, deserved all credence. It is accordingly believed. " ( 19 ) BEFORE accepting the evidence of the prosecution witness, the trial Court was required to scrutinise the evidence with care and caution which the trial Court has not done in the instant case. His statement, therefore, deserved all credence. It is accordingly believed. " ( 19 ) BEFORE accepting the evidence of the prosecution witness, the trial Court was required to scrutinise the evidence with care and caution which the trial Court has not done in the instant case. The trial Court after narrating the evidence of the witnesses observed that"the circumstances that the accused and deceased were working as labourer for last about 10 years at the Cheema Farm, the circumstance that they were living together in nearby quarters; the circumstances that the deceased was living alone and the accused was living with the family; the circumstance that the deceased and the accused both were addicted to drink wine and the circumstance that the accused had a feeling that the deceased was having illicit relations with the wife of the accused fully go to show that the criminal mind of the accused worked in the direction of committing the murder of the deceased and that the accused had in fact committed the murder of the deceased and after committing the murder he threw away the dead body of the deceased on the bank of the lake in the jungle of village Dhaki and concealed the head of the deceased on another bank of the lake with a view to screen himself from legal punishment. "these observations are made by the trial Court without giving specific finding, if the above circumstances were proved by the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and whether the evidence of the prosecution was worthy of credence. The Court is required to accept the evidence of the prosecution witnesses on its intrinsic value and not on its face value. The findings of the trial Court are vitiated for this reason. ( 20 ) ONE of the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution as well as the trial Court in a arriving at the conclusion of guilt of the appellant is that the deceased was last seen in the company of the appellant. According to the first information report (Ex. Ka. 3) on 12-4-1989, the deceased and appellant were seen at about 8 p. m. going out of the Farm. There is no specific allegation in the F. I. R. by the first informant that he had seen Puran Lal and Jugal going together. According to the first information report (Ex. Ka. 3) on 12-4-1989, the deceased and appellant were seen at about 8 p. m. going out of the Farm. There is no specific allegation in the F. I. R. by the first informant that he had seen Puran Lal and Jugal going together. According to his statement in the F. I. R. he simply stated that Jugal and Puran Lal were seen going together out of Farm. He does not make a mention as to by whom the deceased and the appellant were seen going out of the Farm. In his deposition as P. W. 2 Jitayee Miyan says that at about 7 p. m. deceased Jugal and accused Puran Lal had gone to take liquor etc. Puran Lal returned in the night at about 9 p. m. but Jugal did not return and he had enquired from Puran Lal and then Puran Lal had told him that Jugal had separated from him after going out of the Farm. He again, in his examination, did not say specifically that he had seen Jugal and Puran Lal going out of Farm together. However, during the cross examination he stated that he had seen accused and deceased going together. He admits that it was dark at 8 p. m. He also stated that he had shown to the investigating officer, the place where he was at that time and had seen the deceased and the accused going together and also the place where the deceased and accused were seen together. It is pertinent to point out here that according to the First information report the deceased and the appellant were seen together at about 8 p. m. but the time was got changed by P. W. 1 in his deposition as admittedly at 8 p. m. it was dark and the witnesses for the prosecution might have realised that it may be difficult to recognise as to who were going together. The other witness examined by prosecution to prove this circumstance is P. W. 3 Ram Jit. He is admittedly a witness who was working along with other labourers at the Cheema Farm and there is no allegation that he was not available for interrogation on 14-4-1989 when the investigating officer visited the scene of occurrence as also the Farm house of Cheema Farm. He is admittedly a witness who was working along with other labourers at the Cheema Farm and there is no allegation that he was not available for interrogation on 14-4-1989 when the investigating officer visited the scene of occurrence as also the Farm house of Cheema Farm. P. W. 10 S. I. Harish Chandra Singh, the investigating officer, during the course of cross-examination stated that the statement of this witness was recorded by him on 17-4-1989. No explanation was furnished as to why this witness was not interrogated on 14-4-1989 or as to why this witness did not himself tell the investigating officer that he had seen the deceased going in the company of the accused on 12-4-1989. Besides this, this witness says that he had seen both of them going together in the light of torch. Admittedly, no torch was shown to the investigating officer nor this fact was mentioned to the investigating officer. The evidence of this witness, therefore, becomes highly doubtful. The Court below failed to take the notice of these circumstances, except P. W. 2 Jitayee Miyan and P. W. , Ram Jeet, there is no other witness to prove the factum of the deceased and the appellant being seen together going out of the Farm. In the light of the discussion made above, the evidence of both these witnesses becomes highly doubtful and can not be relied upon. Besides, this, the Court below lost sight of an important admission made by P. W. 2 Jitayee Miyan who stated in his examination-in-chief itself that Puran Lal had returned at around 8 or 9 p. m. and on an inquiry he had told that Jugal had separated from him after going out of the Farm. The medical evidence shows that the murder was most probably committed in early hours on 13-4-1989 or some time between the night of 12/13-4-1989. Stomach was found empty and small intestines were also empty. There were faecal matter and gas in the large inestines. The appellant had returned around at 8 or 9 p. m. on 12-4-1989. This circumstance leads to inference that the appellant was perhaps not author of the crime. The body of the deceased was hacked and the head was severed. There must have been profuse bleeding and the stains of blood must have certainly fallen on the clothes of the assailant. This circumstance leads to inference that the appellant was perhaps not author of the crime. The body of the deceased was hacked and the head was severed. There must have been profuse bleeding and the stains of blood must have certainly fallen on the clothes of the assailant. There is no allegation that when the appellant returned on 12-4-1989 at about 8 or 9 p. m. blood stains were found on his clothes or he was in disturbed mental condition. Ordinarily after commission of gruesome crime by a person not habitual of commission of such crime, is not seen behaving in normal manner. P. W. 2 or any other witness does not state that at about 8 or 9 p. m. on 12-4-1989 the appellant was seen abnormal or in disturbed mental state. This circumstance also points out towards innocence of the appellant. The trial Court has failed to take notice of these circumstances. ( 21 ) THE next circumstance relied upon by the prosecution as also by the trial court while convicting the appellant is that after his arrest the appellant made statement before the investigating officer in consequence of which certain fact was discovered. According to P. W. 10 S. I. Harish Chandra Singh after completion of formalities of inquest on the dead body and inspection of the site from where the dead body was recovered, he went to the Farm of Har Bhajan Singh. He interrogated Har Bhajan Singh from whose statement it was revealed that Puran Lal had made extra judicial confession before Har Bhajan Singh. According to P. W. 10 thereafter Puran Lal was summoned at the Farm and he was taken to seclusion. The appellant confessed his guilt and told the investigating officer that he could get the banka used in commission of murder, head and clothes of deceased recovered. He had also told the investigating officer that he had committed the murder on account of Jugals illicit relation with his wife. Thereafter Puran Lal was taken into custody and in presence of witnesses Ram Rekha and Bhadai, he produced the head of the deceased Banka alleged to have been used in the commission of crime, Tahmat, Chappal, Shirt and Gamcha of deceased from the bank of the lake. Thereafter Puran Lal was taken into custody and in presence of witnesses Ram Rekha and Bhadai, he produced the head of the deceased Banka alleged to have been used in the commission of crime, Tahmat, Chappal, Shirt and Gamcha of deceased from the bank of the lake. It is specifically stated that he had shown the place where these articles and head of the deceased were concealed and this place was at a distance of 40 paces from the place from where the truncated body of the deceased was found. The investigating officer had prepared the seizure memo (Ex. Ka. 9 ). ( 22 ) TO establish the discovery in consequence of the statement given by the appellant, the prosecution examined P. W. 10 S. I. Harish Chandra Singh, P. W. 8 Ram Rekha and P. W. 9 Bhadai who are witnesses of seizure memo. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the testimony of these witnesses cannot be relied upon and there are circumstances which make the evidence of discovery in consequence of the statement of accused highly doubtful. The first contention is that admittedly the scene from where the recovery of head and other articles was made was barely 40 paces away from the place where the dead body was found and both the places are in the field of Har Bhajan Singh and at the bank of lake. It is pointed out that admittedly 40-45 labourers were working at the Farm of Har Bhajan Singh and it is difficult to believe that while searching the dead body they would not have noticed the head of the deceased and other articles lying just at a distance of 40 paces from the place where the dead body was found. It is contended that the place was accessible to all working at the Farm and the place can not be said to be a place of concealment and hence it cannot be said that anybody else could not have known about the head, clothes and weapon being burried at the bank of lake adjacent to the field of Har Bhajan Singh. It is pointed out that the court below has failed to appreciate legal position while accepting the evidence of recovery. It is pointed out that the court below has failed to appreciate legal position while accepting the evidence of recovery. It is next contended that the Court below has accepted the whole statement alleged to have been made by the appellant to the investigating officer without considering as to how much it could be proved. Learned counsel for the State contends that there is no material discrepancy in the evidence of the three prosecution witnesses mentioned above and the evidence is consistent and, therefore, was rightly acted upon by the trial Court. ( 23 ) PERUSAL of the evidence on record shows that there is material discrepancy as to when the investigating officer P. W. 10 actually reached the Cheema Farm. According to his statement he had proceeded from the police station at 3. 05 p. m. and had reached the Farm at 3. 30 p. m. He had taken about one to one and half hours in holding inquest and inspecting the site where the dead body was found. Thereafter he went to Har Bhajan Singh Cheema and recorded his statement and it was at about 5. 15 p. m. that Puran Lal was called. He was interrogated for about 15 minutes but the statement of P. W. 10 is contradicted by other witnesses and the case diary entry. Admittedly the statements of Jitayee Miyan, the first informant and head Moharrir were taken at the police out post. Perusal of the case diary, however, shows that the statement of Jitayee Miyan was recorded at about 4. 45 p. m. at police out post and the I. O. proceeded to the scene of the incident after interrogating him. If this were so how could he have proceeded from out post at 3. 05 P. W. 2 Jitayee Miayan says during cross-examination that the police had come at the scene of occurrence at about 1 p. m. P. W. 6 Har Bhajan Singh has stated during cross-examination that the accused talked to him at about 2 or 3 p. m. and thereafter he went to work in the field but later on he stated that when the accused made confession before him, the police had already arrived at the Farm. The police was sitting in the guest house. It was then that accused had come inside and extra judicial confession was made by him. The police was sitting in the guest house. It was then that accused had come inside and extra judicial confession was made by him. Ram Rekha P. W. 8 on the other hand states during the cross-examination that police (Daroga) had met him at about 2 p. m. on the next day of missing of Jugal. He has again stated that the Daroga had called him at 2 p. m. when he was working at Dhaki Farm. At that time the Daroga was present at the house of Cheema. He further states that the police (Daroga) had gone with Cheema and they had taken Puran with them. They reached at the bank of the lake within half an hour and within ten minutes they recovered clothes etc. Thus according to the statement of this witness Har Bhajan Singh P. W. 6 had accompanied the I. O. as well as the accused to the scene from where the alleged recovery was made by the appellant, whereas according to the statement of P. W. 6 he did not accompany the investigating officer and the appellant after they left the guest house. P. W. 9 Bhadai also states that the investigating officer had arrived at the Cheema Farm at about 3 p. m. and the recoveries were made between 3 and 4 p. m. and the appellant was apprehended at 5 p. m. although subsequently he states that Puran was apprehended before making the recoveries. However, he categorically stated that Jugals head was recovered at 4 p. m. It is true, as suggested by the learned State counsel, that P. W. 3 Jitayee Miyan, P. W. 6 Ram Rekha, P. W. 9 Bhadai are illiterate witnesses and may not be having correct idea of time. Yet it transpires from evidence of the prosecution witness P. W. 2 Jitayee Miyan, P. W. 6 Har Bhajan Singh Cheema, P. W. 8 Ram Rekha, P. W. 9 Bhadai as well as the case diary entry that the statement of P. W. 10 Sri Harish Chandra Singh that he had proceeded from the police station at about 3. 05 p. m. is not correct. The fact as to when the I. O. had proceeded from the police station and when he had reached the place of occurrence and when the appellant was actually apprehended by him is shrouded with mystery. 05 p. m. is not correct. The fact as to when the I. O. had proceeded from the police station and when he had reached the place of occurrence and when the appellant was actually apprehended by him is shrouded with mystery. If the extra judicial confession was made by the appellant to P. W. 6 Har Bhajan Singh Cheema at about 2 p. m. when the police was also present in the guest house of Sri Har Bhajan Cheema had informed the police about extra judicial confession made by the appellant, there was no reason why he should have been allowed to go to work at the Farm and why he should gave been called later on. ( 24 ) IT is pertinent to note that before interrogating the appellant and making the recovery at the pointing out of the appellant, the investigating officer was at the seen of occurrence for about one and half hour in connection with holding inquest on the dead body and inspecting the site of occurrence. The places where the head of the deceased and other articles were allegedly concealed was hardly 40 paces away from the scene where the dead body was lying. It is difficult to believe that the investigating office would not have found the head of the deceased and other articles if the clothes etc. were lying only at a distance of 40 paces from the place where the dead body was lying. Admittedly a number of persons had assembled and had visited the scene since after the recovery of the dead body. According to the statement by P. W. 8 Ram Rekha around 40-50 labourers used to work at the Farm. The dead body as well as the head of the deceased and other articles were found at the border of the field of Har Bhajan Singh, the place being accessible to all, there is no reason why the head and other articles would not have been noticed by any body who visited the scene of occurrence. The Court below has failed to take note of these important circumstances and the legal position that much importance can not be attached to the recovery in a case where the place of recovery is open place and accessible to all. ( 25 ) IN AIR 1983 SC 360 : (1983 Cri LJ 692 (2)) Kora Chasi v. State of Orissa. ( 25 ) IN AIR 1983 SC 360 : (1983 Cri LJ 692 (2)) Kora Chasi v. State of Orissa. It was held by the Supreme Court that"so far as the recovery is concerned we cannot attach much importance to this fact as it was from an open place accessible to all. "in AIR 1986 SC 1438 : (1986 Cri LJ 1072) Abdul Sattar v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, it was held that"admittedly the place from where these two things are said to have been recovered was a public place and appears to have been very much accessible to people of the locality. It is difficult to believe that these two have been so concealed that they were not noticed and were available to be collected from the very place such a long time after". There is yet another case AIR 1988 SC 1705 Makhan Singh v. State of Punjab in which the Supreme Court held that:"as seen earlier, the field is an open place surrounded by other fields and according to Nihal Singh the adjacent field is his own as he had taken it on lease and, therefore, it cannot be said that any one else could not have known about the bodies being burried in the field. It cannot, therefore, be said that the place from where the bodies were recovered was such a place about which knowledge could only be attributed to the appellant and none else. Since the exclusive knowledge to the appellant cannot be attributed, the evidence under Section 27 also cannot be said to be a circumstance against the appellant. " ( 26 ) IN view of the fact that the place from where the recovery under Section 27 Evidence Act was made was an open place and was accessible to atleast the labourers of the Farm including PW. 2 Jitayee Miyan, P. W. 3 Ram Jit, P. W. 6 Har Bhajan Singh, P. W. 8 Ram Rekha and P. W. 9 Bhadai and the circumstance that thorough search was being made for the deceased on 13 and 14-4-1989 and that before making the recovery at the pointing out of the appellant, the I. O. had been at the scene of the occurrence for about one and half hours, it cannot be said that no body knew about the head and other articles lying at the place from where the same were allegedly recovered. Therefore, in our view exclusive knowledge of the head and other articles lying at the place of alleged recovery cannot be attributed to the appellant. ( 27 ) IT would be worth mentioning here that the learned trial Judge did not consider the other legal aspect of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that only so much of information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved. Normally the confessional statement made by any person, accused of any offence, made to a police officer is not admissible in evidence. Section 27 served as proviso in Section 25 and under this Section the confessional statement made by a person, accused of any offence, to a police officer, while in custody, only so much of such information may be proved as relates distinctly to the facts thereby discovered. It is well settled that where the accused gives information in a form of a compound statement, the judge must, before using it as evidence, divide the statement into what are really its component parts, and only admit in evidence that part which has led to the discovery of the particular fact. It is only that part which distinctly relates to the discovery which is admissible. But if any part of the statement of the accused person is inadmissible, it cannot be allowed to go in evidence under the guise of admissible evidence failing within scope of this section. For example an accused gives information to the police that he had stolen a cow and had sold the same to a particular person at particular place. As a result of this information the cow was discovered. Only the statement that the accused had sold the cow to a certain person could be proved but the statement that the accused had stolen the cow cannot be allowed to be proved. Similarly, in a case where the accused stated that he had killed a certain person with a knife, the knife is concealed at certain place which he can produce. Similarly, in a case where the accused stated that he had killed a certain person with a knife, the knife is concealed at certain place which he can produce. In consequence of such statement the knife is discovered, at the pointing out of the accused, the first part of the statement that he had killed a certain person with knife can not be allowed to be proved whereas the remaining part of the statement in consequence of which discovery of the knife was made can be allowed to be proved. In the instant case the learned Judge has allowed the whole statement alleged to have been made by the appellant to P. W. 10 Harish Chandra Singh proved without considering as to how much of the information given by the appellant distinctly related to discovery of certain fact. He failed to realise that the statement that "aur Yeh Bhee Bataya Ki Maine Ushkee Hatya Iss Liye Ki, Ki Mritak Jugal Ka Ushkee Ghar Walee Se Abaidh Sambandh tha" could not have been allowed to be proved under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. This part of the statement did not at all distinctly relate to discovery. While considering the evidence in this regard also the trial Judge failed to consider as to how much of the statement was admissible in evidence under Section 27. The Court below simply observed that:" P. W. 10 Sri Harish Chandra Singh is public servant. He during the course of investigation of the case and on pointing out by the accused had recovered the head of the deceased, clothes of the deceased and Banka with which the accused had committed the murder. His statement, therefore, deserved to be relied upon. " ( 28 ) WE agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that the trial Court has failed to properly scrutinise and appreciate the evidence on record as well as legal position arising out in the present case. The evidence of discovery in consequence of the statement of appellant was unreliable and has been wrongly accepted by the trial Judge. ( 29 ) THE appellant in his statement under Section 313, Cr. P. C. stated that he was apprehended by the police at about 6 or 7 p. m. The statement appears to be truthful. The evidence of discovery in consequence of the statement of appellant was unreliable and has been wrongly accepted by the trial Judge. ( 29 ) THE appellant in his statement under Section 313, Cr. P. C. stated that he was apprehended by the police at about 6 or 7 p. m. The statement appears to be truthful. Both P. W. 8 and P. W. 9 are witnesses of recovery at the pointing out of the appellant. Strangely enough they are not witnesses of the inquest of head of the deceased which was allegedly recovered at the pointing out of the appellant in their presence. What transpires from the statement of P. W. 9 is that the recovery appears to have been made first and the accused was apprehended later on. During cross-examination P. W. 9 has stated that the I. O. had gone for making recoveries at about 3 or 4 p. m. and Puran Lal was arrested at 5 p. m. Not only this the witness also stated that the documents were prepared by the I. O. at the Cheema Farm after returning from the lake and Cheema Sahab had also singed the memos. As already pointed out P. W. 8 has also stated that he was called at the Cheema Farm at about 2 p. m. where the I. O. and the owner of the Farm, Cheema Sahab were present at the house of Cheema. The accused was also present there and thereafter the I. O. Cheema Sahab and Puran had gone towards lake. It is specifically stated by him that Cheema was present when the seizure was made and document was prepared. The admission made by the witnesses during cross-examination revealed that he perhaps did not witness the recoveries. Both P. W. 8 and 9 though stated that Puran had told the I. O. that he could get the head and other articles recovered but from the statement of I. O. it appears that the appellant was not questioned in presence of the witnesses. P. W. 10 S. I. Harish Chandra Singh has categorically stated that the appellant was taken to seclusion and he was interrogated there. It is also important to note that the appellant was apprehended by I. O. after the appellant made the confessional statement. The circumstance also makes the evidence of discovery under Section 27 as highly doubtful. P. W. 10 S. I. Harish Chandra Singh has categorically stated that the appellant was taken to seclusion and he was interrogated there. It is also important to note that the appellant was apprehended by I. O. after the appellant made the confessional statement. The circumstance also makes the evidence of discovery under Section 27 as highly doubtful. ( 30 ) AS regards the circumstance of motive, there is absolutely no direct evidence on this point. No witness has stated that the deceased had illicit relation with the wife of the appellant. On the other hand P. W. 8 when questioned by the Court stated that he had not known as to what was the enmity between Jugal and Puran. There was no quarrel between them and both of them were friends. The only evidence of motive is furnished by the confessional statement of the appellant to the Investigating Officer and the extra Judicial confession allegedly made by him to P. W. 6 Har Bhajan Singh. So far as the confessional statement made to the Investigating Officer in this regard is concerned, we have already held that this part of the statement is inadmissible in evidence and we have also found that the evidence of discovery itself is highly unreliable. We are thus left with the evidence on extra judicial confession allegedly made by the appellant to P. W. 6 Har Bhajan Singh. ( 31 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant contends that the evidence of extra judicial confession is weak type of evidence and conviction cannot be based upon it, unless corroborated in material particulars. It is also contended that in view of the nature of the evidence produced by the prosecution the making of the extra judicial confession by the appellant cannot be believed. In his cross-examination in chief P. W. 6 says that accused Puran had come to him and told him that he had killed Jugal. He had also tolet that Jugal had developed illicit relation with his wife. He had seen Jugal and his (accused) wife in objectionable posture. He had also told that on wednesday he had taken Jugal to Majhola liquor shop and had offered him liquor. Thereafter they had returned to the house and at about 8 p. m. on the pretext of offering more liquor he had taken Jugal towards lake where he killed him. He had also told that on wednesday he had taken Jugal to Majhola liquor shop and had offered him liquor. Thereafter they had returned to the house and at about 8 p. m. on the pretext of offering more liquor he had taken Jugal towards lake where he killed him. He had requested that he may be helped. During cross-examination, the witness stated that the accused had come to him in the afternoon and talked to him till 2 or 3 p. m. Thereafter he went to work in the field and worked there till 5 p. m. He has also stated that the I. O. came to the Farm at 4. 30 p. m. and he had taken away the appellant at about 6 or 7 p. m. and he did not know as to where the appellant was taken by the Investigating Officer. He also states that during cross-examination that the police had arrived at the Farm when the appellant made confession to him and the police people were sitting in the guest house. The appellant had come inside the house. He has specifically stated that the confession was made by the appellant after the police had arrived at the Farm. It is strange that the extra judicial confession was made by the appellant at the time when the police was present in the guest room of the witness Har Bhajan Singh yet the appellant was allowed to go and work in the field. As already stated above according to this witness the confessional statement was made between 2 and 3 p. m. and appellant worked in the field till 5 p. m. We have also pointed out above that this witness does not admit to have witnessed the discovery under Section 27 whereas P. W. 8 categorically admits that Puran was taken by I. O. and Cheem Sahab and they returned within half an hour. P. W. 8 admits that at the time of preparation the seizure memo of Cheema was present. Similar statement is of P. W. 9 who states that the seizure memo was prepared after returning from the lake at the Farm of Cheema Sahab. Admittedly Har Bhajan Singh P. W. 6 is known as Cheema Sahab. P. W. 8 admits that at the time of preparation the seizure memo of Cheema was present. Similar statement is of P. W. 9 who states that the seizure memo was prepared after returning from the lake at the Farm of Cheema Sahab. Admittedly Har Bhajan Singh P. W. 6 is known as Cheema Sahab. P. W. 6 Har Bhajan Singh is manager of the Farm, Murder of labourer working at his Farm was committed, dead body was recovered from his Farm and as pointed out above the seizure of head etc. was made in his presence yet the witness is shirking to be a witness of any of the seizure memos. Strangly enough he allowed the appellant to go away although the police was sitting in his guest room. The appellant had allegedly made extra judicial confession before him. The conduct of the witnesses is highly suspicious and creates suspicion that theory of extra judicial confession was a cooked up. In our view the trial Court has committed error in accepting such wavering evidence of extra judicial confession. ( 32 ) HAVING carefully considered the evidence on record and the judgment of the trial Court we come to the conclusion that the appeal deserves to be allowed and is consequently allowed. The judgment and order of the trial Court convicting the appellant under Sections 302, 201, I. P. C. are set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the aforesaid charges. The appellant is in jail. He shall be set at liberty forthwith unless required to be detained in jail in connection with some other case. Appeal allowed.