P. G. Agarwal, J. — This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 20.9.96 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Darrang at Mangaldoi in Sessions Case No.64 (DM)/92, thereby convicting and sentencing the accused-appellant Dwijen Kalita under section 302IPC awarding the sentence of life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default further imprisonment for one month. The facts, in brief are that - on 12.7.8 at about 10.30 AM, Shri Ranjit Kalita lodged a written FIR before the Officer In-charge, Kalaigaon Police Station to the effect that on that day at about 7.30. AM while his brother Deepak Kalita was proceeding to Tangla and reached the house of the accused persons, his younger brother Dwijen Kalita, two sisters, namely, Smti Labanya Kalita, and Smti Kunja Kalita along with one Rajat Chandra attacked Deepak with sharp edged weapons and caused grievous injuries on the head, neck, hands and legs, Deepak Kalita died instantaneously at the spot. Police registered a case and on completion of investigation submitted charge-sheets against four accused-persons. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and the learned Sessions Judge, Darrang framed charges against the four accused-persons under sections 302/34 IPC. During trial, the prosecution examined, as many as, seven witnesses. The statement of the accused-persons were recorded and on conclusion the learned trial Judge acquitted three out of the four accused-persons and convicted and sentenced only the present appellant as aforesaid. We have heard Mr. JM Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellant assisted by Mr. BM Choudhury, and Mr. Sk Noor Mohammad, learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 4. In this appeal the factum of killing of Deepak Kalita on the date of occurrence is not disputed. The point for determination is whether the present appellant is involved at all in the above killing. In this, case, although the occurrence took place at 7.30 AM in a residential locality, there is no eye witness. The informant of the case Ranjit Kalita arrived at the place of occurrence only on being reported by one Dhani Ram Sarma. PW 2 Gouri Kama Das is the scribe of the FIR, Ext 1. Golok Chandra Sarma, PW 3 and Baihagu, PW 4 did not support the prosecution and they were declared hostile. PW 5 is Smti Bhatuki Deka who claims that the appellant made an extra-judicial confession before her, which shall be considered later on. PW 2 Gouri Kama Das is the scribe of the FIR, Ext 1. Golok Chandra Sarma, PW 3 and Baihagu, PW 4 did not support the prosecution and they were declared hostile. PW 5 is Smti Bhatuki Deka who claims that the appellant made an extra-judicial confession before her, which shall be considered later on. PW 6 is the Investigating Police Officer, Kumud Deka and PW 7 is Dr. KC Das who has proved the post mortem report prepared by Dr. JN Talukdar, who did the autopsy. As stated above, the learned trial Judge acquitted the three accused-persons and convicted the present appellant only. The relevant observations of the learned Sessions Judge are in the following words : "It is seen from the evidence on record that there is no satisfactory and corro­borative evidence against the accused persons, namely, Smti Labanya Kalita, Rajat Saikia and Kunja Eala. However, the conduct of accused Dwijen Kalita shows that he has committed the alleged murder and the circumstantial evidence against accused Dwijen Kalita is admissible under section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act," 7. While going through the evidence on record, we find that the alleged circumstantial evidence, mention of which has been made as above, was against all the four accused-persons. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the prosecution relies on the extra-judicial confession only. In this case, according to PW 1, he met all the four accused-persons soon after arrival at the place of occurrence and all of them made the following statement before him. "We have cut Deepak. Now we will cut you". Hence, out of fear he fled away. The above statement is vague and ambiguous in the sense that PW 1 has not mentioned as to what the exact words used by each of the accused-persons. In the case of Heramba Brahma & another vs. State of Assam, AIR 1982 SC 1595 , the facts of which, on the point of extra-judicial confession, are more or less identical to the present case, the Apex Court observed as under: "This extra judicial confession is vague and ambiguous because it is not clear whether each one spoke separately and what were the words used by each of the accused. Witness speaks of an extra-judicial confession by three accused person having simultaneously made and when reproduced in his language, it makes no sense. Witness speaks of an extra-judicial confession by three accused person having simultaneously made and when reproduced in his language, it makes no sense. It is dangerous to rely upon such extra-judicial confession even if the witness's credentials are not in question. The question that agitates our mind is what language was used by each accused, in what words confession was made and whether each use the same language ? Evidence of the witness does not reproduce the words used by each accused. It is the witness's ipse dixit that is being deposed to." 8. Admittedly the learned trial Judge did not accept the above extra-judicial confession allegedly made before PW 1 in respect of the three accused-persons who are acquitted by him. On the evidence of PW 1 there is nothing to single out the present appellant on the basis of the statement made as above. We, therefore, hold that this alleged extra-judicial confession before PW 1 was not accepted by the trial Court and we also do not find any basis to accept the same against the present-appellant. 9. In this case there is another alleged extra-judicial confession made by the present-appellant before PW 5, Smti Bhatuki Deka, an old lady, aged about 52 years. She stated that one morning while she was proceeding towards the field she met the appellant Dwijen, who stated as follows : "I have finished off one person. I have finished off our Maju Deka" Hearing this she left away. 10. The law on the point of extra-judicial confession is well settled. In cases where prosecution presses for conviction on the basis of extra-judicial confession they will have to prove the date, time and place of the alleged statement and the facts and circumstances under which the alleged statement was made. In the present case the witness PW 5 has not given the date and place of the alleged statement, ie when and where the accused made such a statement. It may be on the date of occurrence or after six months of the occurrence. The Court cannot presume a date. There was nothing to show as to who is the lady Bhatuki Deka. Is she related to the accused or the deceased ? or as to why the appellant will make a statement before her. It may be on the date of occurrence or after six months of the occurrence. The Court cannot presume a date. There was nothing to show as to who is the lady Bhatuki Deka. Is she related to the accused or the deceased ? or as to why the appellant will make a statement before her. After giving our considered thought, we find that her statement does not inspire any confidence and it cannot be regarded as extra judicial confession. Learned counsel for the appellant has further drawn our attention to the fact that while recording the statement of the accused under section 313 CrPC, this alleged extra-judicial confession allegedly made by the appellant before PW 5 was not put to the accused-appellant and, as such, in view of the settled principle of law such statement, evidence and material not brought to the attention of the accused under section 313 CrPC, cannot be considered against him. 11. During investigation the police seized two 'daos' from two accused persons, namely, Labanya and Dwijen. The said seized 'daos' were not sent for chemical analysis and as a matter of fact this were not produced before the trial Court. Further, we find that this fact of seizure of 'daos' was not put to the appellant in his statement made under section 313 CrPC. 12. Although a mere reading of the FIR reveals that all the four accused- persons conjointly attacked the deceased and caused various injuries on his persons the learned trial Judge also framed charges under sections 302/34IPC, the Doctor also found, as many as, three numbers of incised wounds on the person of the deceased but there is absolutely no evidence to show as to who caused the above injuries on the persons of the deceased. There is also no circumstantial evidence whereform we can infer that the accused and the accused alone has caused the above injuries. In our opinion thi s is a case of no evidence as the prosecution has failed to bring home the charge. 13. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the conviction and sentence of the accused-appellant as awarded by the trial Court is set aside. The accused is acquitted of the charge and be set at liberty forthwith. The fine as imposed, if paid, be refunded to the accused-appellant.