JUDGMENT 1. - Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence recorded on 4.7.95 by the learned Addl. and Sessions Judge No. 1 Sri Ganganagar, the appellant has preferred this appeal on several grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal. 2. Facts giving rise to the appeal stated briefly are that First Information Report was filed on 21.8.92. One Pabu Dan Singh informed the Police that one Gordhan Singh is lying dead in front of his room. In the F.I.R. Police mentions that Gordhan has been killed by unknown person in the night. On the basis of this F.I.R., the accused Mangal Singh was arrested and after completion of investigation he was prosecuted for causing murder of Gordhan Singh. The prosecution has examined 12 witnesses and proved certain documents, on appreciation of which the learned Addl. Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the accused is guilty of murder of Gordhan Singh. Consistently with this finding, the learned Judge proceeded to sentence the accused for imprisonment of life. It is this order which is assailed before this Court by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused. 3. He submits that the judgment of conviction is unsustainable in law and there is no evidence on basis of which it can be reasonably concluded that the accused is. the person responsible for homicidal death of Gordhan Singh. The learned counsel pointed out that there is no eye witness to the incident. Except a previous quarrel between accused and the deceased which took place 10 days prior to the death of the deceased, there is no other evidence or any material recorded, connecting the accused with the death. In the circumstances it was argued that the judgment of conviction is unsustainable in law. 4. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor who have scrutinised the record and re-appreciated the evidence. 5. PW/1 Ramesh Kumar who is the owner of Ahuja Industries where the deceased Gordhan Singh was working alongwith others including the accused deposes of a quarrel between the deceased and the accused on 12.8.92. the witness deposed that he was informed by one Naorat Ram that there was a quarrel between Mangal Singh and Gordhan Singh in which Mangal Singh had drawn a knife. The accused Mangal Singh was therefore, removed from the factory by witness Ramesh Kumar. the witness deposed that he was informed by one Naorat Ram that there was a quarrel between Mangal Singh and Gordhan Singh in which Mangal Singh had drawn a knife. The accused Mangal Singh was therefore, removed from the factory by witness Ramesh Kumar. Witness then deposes that in the night of 21.8.92 he was informed by one Shayar Singh that Gordhan Singh has been killed by someone in the night and he is lying outside his room, which information he conveyed to the Police over a telephone. He then states that on 22.8.92 accused Mangal Singh came to him and told that he has killed Gordhan Singh and the witness should save him. The witness then deposes- " ml le; eqyfte eaxyflag us cfu;ku vius gkFk esa yh gqbZ Fkh ftls lh0vkbZ0 lkgc us tCr dj yh vkSj eqyfte dks lh0vkbZ0 lkgc vius lkFk Fkkus esa ys x,A " 6. He then proceeded to prove documents which were executed in his presence. 7. In his cross-examination he states that the accused talked to him in 'Bagri' language wherein the accused said that he has done that work and whether you want to destroy or save me is up to you. The witness denied the suggestion that Mangal Singh did not admit killing of Gordhan Singh in presence of the witness. It is difficult to accept the testimony of this witness and extra judicial confession allegedly made for the reasons that it is improbable that a person would come and confess to an employer who removed him from the service. It is also obvious from the deposition that when the confession was made the Police was already present on the spot, it, therefore, becomes inadmissible evidence. Taking into consideration this aspect it is, therefore, not reliable confession on basis of which conviction can be maintained. We will have to see that there is evidence after exclusion of the confession statement which supports the order of conviction. 8. PW/2 Saroj is a Panch witness who proved execution of P-4, P-5, P-6 & P-7 whereunder the certain articles, clothings, soil etc. were seized. He proved the seizure. 9. PW-3 is Pabu Dan Singh on whose report the F.I.R. was recorded he is also a Panch witness who proved execution of P-9 & P-10 witnessing Panchnama of the dead body. PW/2 Saroj is a Panch witness who proved execution of P-4, P-5, P-6 & P-7 whereunder the certain articles, clothings, soil etc. were seized. He proved the seizure. 9. PW-3 is Pabu Dan Singh on whose report the F.I.R. was recorded he is also a Panch witness who proved execution of P-9 & P-10 witnessing Panchnama of the dead body. He states that there was no quarrel between the deceased and the accused in his presence. However, he was told of the quarrel by others. 10. PW-4 is Budh Singh a co-worker of the accused and the deceased, he was witness to the quarrel between accused and the deceased which took place 10 days prior to the death. The prosecution story is not further proved by this witness. 11. PW-5 Laxman Singh who is also a co-employee who went to get milk in the morning and found Gordhan Singh lying dead. He, therefore, told the fact to PW-3 Pabu Dan Singh who further reported the matter to the Police He also corroborates the testimony of other witnesses in relation to the quarrel which took place between accused and the deceased 10 days ago. 12. Appreciation of this evidence coupled with the evidence of other witnesses it is obvious that the prosecution has proved that there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased 10 days ago in which the accused threatened the deceased with dire consequence. He is the another co-worker who speaks about the quarrel between deceased and the accused 10 days ago. This witness also deposes to the fact that when the accused confessed before the employer Ramesh Kumar PW-1, he was present. He has also deposed that when they were talking Police came and arrested the accused. It is worthwhile to note his words- " gc ckr dj jgs Fks fd iqfyl vk xbZ vkSj eaxy dks fxjQ~rkj dj fy;kA " 13. He thus proves that the statement given in extra judicial confession made by the accused in presence of the Police is therefore, liable to be rejected. 14. PW-7 is the Doctor who conducted the Postmortem and proved homicidal death of Gordhan Singh. The post-mortem report is proved by the doctor. 15. PW-8 Ramswaroop was Head Constable Incharge to the Police Station Karanpur and, therefore, he was also incharge of Malkhana. He deposes to have handed over the articles in sealed condition to F.S.L. Jaipur. 14. PW-7 is the Doctor who conducted the Postmortem and proved homicidal death of Gordhan Singh. The post-mortem report is proved by the doctor. 15. PW-8 Ramswaroop was Head Constable Incharge to the Police Station Karanpur and, therefore, he was also incharge of Malkhana. He deposes to have handed over the articles in sealed condition to F.S.L. Jaipur. 16. PW-9 Mangu Singh is another Panch witness who deposes the recovery of knife by the accused in his presence and it was handed over to the Police. 17. PW-10 Balwant Ram took certain articles from Malkhana to F.S.L. Jaipur. The testimony of this eye-witness is inconsequential in relation to the guilt of the accused. 18. PW-11 is a Photographer who took photos of the dead body and has proved the same, again his testimony is inconsequential. 19. PW-12 is Investigating Officer and S.H.O. who investigated into crime and has proved the investigation and the documents executed during the investigation. He substantially corroborates all the witnesses in relation to the execution of those documents and recovery. 20. This then is entire evidence on basis of which learned Addl. Sessions Judge has chosen to convict the accused in murder of Gordhan. On our re-appreciation of the. evidence on record wherein concluded that he found to be guilt proved beyond reasonable doubt. Even if the entire evidence on record is accepted, there are certain links important in nature which are missing. 21. There is no connection between the previous quarrel which took place 10 days ago and death of the deceased Gordhan. There is no eye-witness, there is no other circumstantial evidence to connect the accused with the crime, there, is no evidence of accused being seen with or around the deceased at the time of offence or near abouts, there is no evidence that on the date of death-the accused was found in the vicinity of the premises where the offence has occurred. There is no evidence connecting the knife recovery from the accused do the injuries of the deceased or blood of the deceased and consequently, accepting of proof of previous quarrel, the prosecution has not proved anything further connecting the accused with the substantial death of Gordhan Singh on 22.8.92. 22. It has also, been observed that the extra judicial confession has allegedly been made by the accused and heavily relied upon by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. 22. It has also, been observed that the extra judicial confession has allegedly been made by the accused and heavily relied upon by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. It is not acceptable in law, obviously it was made in presence of Police Officer and is, therefore, inadmissible also. Apart from the illegal aspect of this we find it highly improbable that a person who has been Tired from the service by the employer for a pervious quarrel with the deceased would Come to the employer to confess about his committing offence. 23. It is Improbable that he choses his employer and not to his co-worker for making extra judicial confession. Even if it is presumed that improbable has happened, the confessional statement was made in presence of the Police Officer and is, therefore, liable to be rejected. If the extra Judicial confession is rejected, if there is no eye-witness to the testimony, if there is ho evidence showing presence of the accused in the vicinity of the place where the crime took place, if the knife recovered from the accused is not connected to the offence or the blood of the deceased, it would be highly improper to maintain the order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. 24. In the result the appeal succeeds and allowed. The judgment and order of conviction passed on 4.7.95 is hereby set-aside. The accused be set at liberty if not required in any other crime by the police.Appeal Allowed. *******