JUDGMENT 1. - The State of Rajasthan has taken this appeal under Section 378 Cr.P.C. challenging the judgment dated 23.11.1982 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar whereby he acquitted Gurcharan Singh of the offence under section 302 IPC. 2. Dalip Singh lodged first information report Ex. P/1 on 23.9.1981 stating therein that his son Gurubaksh Singh had left his village on Monday to go to his maternal-uncle Karnail Singh who resided in Chhota Lalpura but he did not return. When Karnail Singh came to his Dhani he enquired about Gurubaksh Singh on which Karnail Singh informed that Gurubaksh Singh did not go to him. He and Karnail Singh made search of Gurubaksli Singh. It was further stated that Kala Singh informed him that on Monday he saw Gurubaksh Singh and Gurcharan Singh (accused) on the head of the canal at about 11 p.m. On receiving this information they went towards the head of the canal and there one Kashmir told them that the dead body was lying in Baurwala Minor. On this they along with Diwan Singh went to Gurcharan Singh who on asking admitted that he had murdered Gurubaksh Singh as he used to tease his sister Jogendra. On this report a case under section 302 IPC was registered. The police arrested the accused and recovered at his instance a 'Kassi'. His shirt was also recovered on the disclosure statement made by the accused. 'The postmortem examination was done by Dr. Surendra Mohan Sharma, PW 10. He prepared the report Ex. P/15. The Doctor found that there were fractures of skull bone and proximal phalnx of right thumb. The cause of death given by the Doctor was the fracture of skull bone. After the completion of the investigation, the police submitted a challan. 3. Accused denied the charge and claimed trial. Prosecution examined Sujan Singh PW 1, Prem Singh, PW 2, Kala Singh, PW 3, Jawahar Singh, PW 4, Dalip Singh, PW 5, Kashmir, PW 6, Karnail Singh, PW 7, Ramlal, PW 8, Diwan Singh, PW 9, Dr. Surendra Mohan Sharma, PW 10 and Ummed Singh, PW 11. Accused in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the recovery of articles at his instance. He also denied that he ever confessed his guilt. The learned Additional Sessions Judge found that Gurubaksh Singh had met homicidal death. Surendra Mohan Sharma, PW 10 and Ummed Singh, PW 11. Accused in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the recovery of articles at his instance. He also denied that he ever confessed his guilt. The learned Additional Sessions Judge found that Gurubaksh Singh had met homicidal death. He further found that the prosecution had failed to bring home the guilt of the accused. He did not believe the extra-judicial confession. The recovered 'Kassi' was not sent for chemical examination as also recovered shirt was not found stained with blood, therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge held that this evidence was of no consequence against the accused. Eventually he acquitted the accused-respondent. Hence, this appeal. 4. The contention of Mr. Singhvi, learned Public Prosecutor was that the evidence regarding extra-judicial confession ought to have been believed and it should not have been discarded on the ground of minor contradictions. He submitted that the recovery of the 'Kassi' and the shirt which were concealed by the accused was the strongest circumstance against the accused. He placed reliance on the case of Waikhom Angamba Singh v. State of Manipur, 1982 Criminal. L.J. 1346 Guwahati High Court. 5. Mr. Garg, on the other hand supported the judgment of the trial Court. 6. We have given the matter our anxious consideration. The prosecution case rested on the circumstantial evidence which was to the following effect : (i) Last Seen; (ii) Recovery of Kassi and Shirt; (iii) Extra Judicial Confession made by the accused in the presence of Dalip Singh, PW 5, Karnail Singh, PW 7 and Diwan Singh, PW 9, and (iv) Motive. (i) Last Seen : 7. Evidence regarding last seen was sought to be produced through Kala Singh, PW 3. In the FIR it was stated that Kala Singh had informed that accused and the deceased were seen together on Monday night at the head of the Canal. However, Kala Singh has not supported the prosecution story in this regard. He has been declared hostile. In the cross-examination of Kala Singh nothing has emerged as to say that he has been won over by the accused. There is no other evidence on record regarding this fact that the accused and the deceased were seen together on Monday night. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has, therefore, rightly not found proved this circumstance. (ii) Recovery of the Kassi and Shirt: 8. There is no other evidence on record regarding this fact that the accused and the deceased were seen together on Monday night. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has, therefore, rightly not found proved this circumstance. (ii) Recovery of the Kassi and Shirt: 8. Ummed Singh, PW 11 has deposed that he had arrested the accused on 5.10.1981 vide memo Ex. P/9 and thereafter on 10.10.1981 the accused gave him information that he had concealed the Kassi in the canal and had also concealed his shirt in his house under a box and thereafter the Kassi was recovered from the canal and the shirt was recovered from the house of the accused. Dalip Singh, PW 5 and Jawahar Singh, PW 4 were associated as Motbirs of this recovery. Dalip Singh has supported the recovery. By this evidence it can certainly be found proved that the accused had given information Ex. P/20 and thereafter a shirt was recovered from the house of the accused and Kassi was recovered from the canal. The question for consideration is whether the recoveries connect the accused in any manner. The 'Kassi' was not sent for examination by the Forensic Science Laboratory. Therefore, there is nothing on record to believe that this 'Kassi' was used to cause injuries to the deceased. The shirt was sent to the laboratory from where it has been reported that there was no blood found on the shirt. Thus, there is nothing to hold that at the time of commission of the offence the accused was wearing this shirt. It may be that the shirt was kept under a box but because of this concealment no adverse inference can be drawn against the accused. 'Kassi' was recovered from the canal which is a open place and was accessible to all. Even if it is assumed that the accused had thrown the 'Kassi' there the recovery is not of much consequence as it is not established that the Kassi was used in the commission of offence. 9. The facts of the case relied on by the learned Public Prosecutor were entirely different. That was a case where the prosecution had relied on direct evidence as also the dying declaration. Besides these two pieces of evidence there was the recovery of 'pant' and 'Khukri' (weapon) at the instance of the accused. 9. The facts of the case relied on by the learned Public Prosecutor were entirely different. That was a case where the prosecution had relied on direct evidence as also the dying declaration. Besides these two pieces of evidence there was the recovery of 'pant' and 'Khukri' (weapon) at the instance of the accused. The learned Judges drew the inference against the accused on the ground that the 'pant' was recently washed and 'Khukri' bore reddish tinge. Since there was other important evidence against the accused connecting him with the crime, this recovery was used as an additional circumstance. In the instant case there is no other material on record to hold that the accused had committed the murder and, therefore, simply because the 'Kassi' and shirt were recovered at the instance of the accused inference of murder cannot be drawn against him. (iii) Extra Judicial Confession: 10. The prosecution has produced the evidence of extra judicial confession through Dalip Singh, PW 5 who is the father of the deceased. Karnail Singh, PW 7 who is the maternal-uncle and Diwan Singh who is also a relation of deceased. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has not believed this evidence and we think, rightly. There are material contradictions in the statements of three witnesses. Dalip Singh, PW 5 and Karnail Singh, PW 7 have deposed that when in their presence Diwan Singh asked the accused he admitted his guilt whereas Diwan Singh, PW 9 has deposed that when he talked to the accused both Dalip Singh and Karnail Singh were not there and they were away outside the Dhani. This is not the version of the prosecution that the accused made confession twice. It is relevant to state that even according to Dalip Singh only Diwan Singh had gone inside the Dhani of the accused and they stood some 5-7 steps away from the Dhani. According to Karnail Singh, PW 7 when Diwan Singh assured the accused that if he disclosed true facts he would not be implicated in the case, the accused came out with the confession. However, Diwan Singh has no-where stated that he gave any assurance to the accused on which he confessed his guilt. According to him he only asked the accused as to what happened and whether he murdered Gurubaksh the accused admitted to have done so. However, Diwan Singh has no-where stated that he gave any assurance to the accused on which he confessed his guilt. According to him he only asked the accused as to what happened and whether he murdered Gurubaksh the accused admitted to have done so. Thus, there are material contradictions regarding the talks which took place between Diwan Singh and the accused. According to Dalip Singh he had also asked the accused telling that he had done objectionable work on which he admitted his guilt. This fact that Dalip Singh also talked to the accused is not deposed even by Karnail Singh. 11. Then it has come in the statement of Dalip Singh, PW 5 that when they talked the accused he told that as the deceased had teased his sister he had killed him. This important fact is missing from the statements of PW 9 Diwan Singh. Had the accused disclosed the reason for the crime, the witness would have definitely heard it and he would have deposed the same in the Court. As a matter of fact Diwan Singh is the person before whom the confession is said to have been made. Thus, there are material contradictions in the statements of the three witnesses regarding the extra judicial confession. In our opinion, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly disbelieved this circumstance. 12. Apart from this it is not believable that the accused would confess his guilt before these three persons. They were not related to the accused. The accused could very well knew that Dalip Singh being father, Karnail Singh being maternal uncle and Diwan Singh who is also related to the deceased could not help him. Normally a culprit confesses his guilt before those persons who, he thinks, were likely to help him. It is all the more surprising that the accused straight-way admitted his guilt. In our opinion, the witnesses have concocted this evidence in order to implicate the accused in this case. True it is, extra judicial confession, if believed, can be made basis of conviction. However, it is necessary that the evidence of extra-judicial confession is convincing. (iv) Motive : 13. In our opinion, the witnesses have concocted this evidence in order to implicate the accused in this case. True it is, extra judicial confession, if believed, can be made basis of conviction. However, it is necessary that the evidence of extra-judicial confession is convincing. (iv) Motive : 13. It has come in the statement of Dalip Singh, PW 5 that one year before the murder of his son the accused had told him that Gurubaksh Singh had teased his sister Jogendro and that he should mend otherwise it would not be proper. Thus, the alleged incident of teasing is said to have taken place some one year before the date of occurrence. There is no material on record to believe that during the period of one year the deceased had ever teased Jogendro. Even if we believe the statement of Dalip Singh in this regard the matter must have ended when the accused had informed the father of the deceased about teasing incident. It cannot be believed that after the lapse of one year the accused would think of murdering Gurubaksh Singh because of the alleged incident. Thus, the prosecution has not been able to prove the so called motive for the crime also. 14. There is no other stock with the prosecution. We have considered all the circumstances, we fully agree with the view taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the prosecution has not been able to bring home the guilt against the accused. No case for interference is made out in this appeal. 15. Consequently, there is no force in this appeal which is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******