JUDGMENT (ORAL) R.K. Batta, J. - The appellant was tried for murder of Rama Upasso Gaonkar and he had been convicted for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. vide impugned Judgment Dated 20-8-1997 which is subject matter of this appeal. The appellant has been sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- in default to uhdergo 6 months R.I. for the said offence. 2. The prosecution had, in all, examined 18 witnesses. However, the evidence of only some of the witnesses is material. There are no eye witnesses to the incident. The evidence mainly consists of extrajudicial confession made by the appellant to P.W. 11, Rohidas M. Gaude, P.W. 13 Puno Pandurang Gaude and P.W. 16 Shamba Borkar as well as evidence of P. W. 6 Vatsal Salelkar and her husband P.W. 7 Guru Salelkar. Besides the extra-judicial confession, the other evidence upon which the reliance has been placed by the prosecution is recovery of blood stained danda at the instance of the appellant. The motive for the crime is stated to be the property dispute between the appellant and the deceased. In the F.I.R. which was lodged by Jaywant Gaonkar, P.W. 1, brother of the deceased, the names of appellant and P.W. 7 Guru Salelkar, who is the brother-in-law of the deceased, figure as suspects. The lower Court relied upon the extra-judicial confession made to P.W. 13 Puno Pandurang Gaude, P.W. 16 Shamba Borkar, as well as the recovery of the blood stained danda, on the strength of which, the appellant has been convicted for murder of Rama Upasso Gaonkar. 3. Learned Advocate Shri Nitin Sardessai, appearing on behalf of the appellant, under the Legal Aid Scheme, has urged before us that the evidence of P.W. 13 Puno Gaude and P.W. 16 Shamba Borkar is unbelievable for various reasons including that even though these witnesses had come to know about the death of Rama Upasso Gaonkar in the evening of the day on which the appellant is alleged to have made confession before them, yet these witnesses neither informed the police nor any of the family members of the deceased. Their statements were recorded by the police after about a week or so. Their statements were recorded by the police after about a week or so. The recovery of the danda was attacked on the ground that the pancha does not at all disclose that the danda had any blood stains and that the recovery has been made from on open place, behind the house of the appellant. He also pointed out that there are material variations between the evidence of prosecution witnesses P.W. 11, P.W. 13 and P.W. 16 as to the exact expression used by the appellant while making confession. According to him the conviction founded on such evidence cannot be sustained and the appellant is entitled to acquittal. 4. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor Shri A. P. Lawande tried to justify the conviction on the grounds that the name of the appellant figures in the F.I.R.; that there is enemity between the deceased and the appellant on account of property dispute; that even though there is delay on the part of prosecution witnesses in disclosing the extra-judicial confusion, yet, the same, by itself, would not be sufficient to, discard the prosecution case. According to him, the evidence of P.W. 13. Puno Gaude and P.W. 16 Shamba Borkar not only inspires confidence, but their evidence is trustworthy and the disclosure was made by the appellant to them on account of closeness of the appellant to the said persons with whom he was working. The disclosure, in pursuance of which the danda was recorded which is alleged to have been used in the incident it also justified on the ground that the danda was recovered on the disclosure made by the appellant on 2nd August i.e., to say after few days of his arrest on 30th July. Therefore. Shri Lawande submits that the conviction is well founded and no interference is called for. 5. We shall first take up the prosecution case in relation to the extrajudicial confession made to prosecution witnesses P.W. 11, Rohidas Gaude, P.W. 13 Puna Gaude and P.W. 16 Shamba Borkar as also. P.W. 6 Vatsal Salelkar and P.W. 7 Guru Salelkar. In so far as the testimony of P.W. 11 is concerned the said testimony was not even relied upon by the trial Judge and. in fact. P.P. Shri Lowande also does not place reliance on the said testimony. P.W. 6 Vatsal Salelkar and P.W. 7 Guru Salelkar. In so far as the testimony of P.W. 11 is concerned the said testimony was not even relied upon by the trial Judge and. in fact. P.P. Shri Lowande also does not place reliance on the said testimony. In fact, the testimony of P.W. 11 does not in any manner help the prosecution case in view of the major contradictions in his evidence. This witness had stated in his evidence that the accused had stated "Ramak marlo". However, in his statement before the police what was stated by him was "Rama melo". The two expressions have different connotation. The expression, "Ramak marlo" may mean that either Rama was assaulted or killed. - But the expression "Rama melo" would mean that Rama died. Therefore, the evidence of P.W. 11 is of no assistance to the prosecution. 6. P.W. 13 Puno Gaude and P.W. 16 Shamba Borkar have stated that initially the appellant had told them that someone is dead and thereafter. P.W. 13 told that "Ramak aven marlo", meaning that he had assaulted/killed Rama. P.W. 13 understood the said expression as that the appellant had assaulted Rama. P.W. 16 probably understood the same as the appellant had killed Rama. Both these witnesses had come to know in the evening of the day on which the confessional statement was made by the appellant that Rama had died. These witnesses neither in formed the police nor any members of the family of the deceased that the appellant had made confessional statement to them that he had assaulted/ killed Rama. In fact, P.W. 16 even goes to the extent of saying that he had not informed this fact to any of his family members. This behaviour of these witnesses is rather unusual, especially taking into account that in the evening these witnesses had come to know that Rama had died. In case the appellant had made any extra-judicial confession to them, which had connection with the killing of Rama it was but natural that they would have either informed the police or any of the family members of Rama or atleast to their own family members. On account of this conduct of these witnesses, we find that their evidence does not inspire confidence and we find it rather difficult to place reliance on their testimony, in these circumstances. 7. On account of this conduct of these witnesses, we find that their evidence does not inspire confidence and we find it rather difficult to place reliance on their testimony, in these circumstances. 7. Now coming to the confession said to have been made by the appellant to P.W. 7. Guru Salelkar, who is the brother-in-law of the deceased it is pertinent to note that this name also figures as one of the suspects in the crime on account of his enemical relation with his brother-in-law, namely the deceased. Since the name of this, witness figures in the F.I.R. naturally he would like to clear himself from the controversy and the best-way would be to put the blame on somebody else. Even though his relations with the deceased were enemical, yet after he came to know that deceased Rama had died, it was expected that he would immediately inform this fact to the police if not to the' family members of the deceased with whom he had enemical terms. Nothing of that sort was done by P.W. 7 Guru Salelkar. In such circumstances, we are not inclined to place reliance on the testimony of P.W. 7. P.W. 6. Vatsal Salelkar is the wife of P.W. 7 Guru Salelkar and she had narrated what was stated to her by her husband. Once we discard the evidence of P.W. 7, the evidence of P.W. 6 which is based upon the information given by P.W. 7 cannot be relied upon. 8. The next circumstance which has been relied upon by the prosecution is the recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence act on disclosure made by the appellant. The pancha of recovery is P.W. 5 Ashok Tan. In his deposition before this Court: he has stated that the accused made statement that he would show a danda and thereafter, the accused took them behind his house removed one danda and handed over the same to the police. First of all, this disclosure statement does not at all reveal about authorship of the concealment of the danda, which in fact is material in case of disclosure and recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. He merely stated that he would show a danda. First of all, this disclosure statement does not at all reveal about authorship of the concealment of the danda, which in fact is material in case of disclosure and recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. He merely stated that he would show a danda. Even though in the course of cross examination this witness has stated that the appellant removed the danda from underneath some scrap, yet, it is no-where stated by him that the accused had in fact, made any disclosure regarding concealment of the danda. Secondly, the danda was recovered from behind the house of the appellant from an open place. Thirdly. pancha P. W. 5 Ashok Tari does not at all speak of any blood stains on the danda in the course of his evidence. There are in fact three contused lacerated wounds and as a result of such wounds there is bound to be blood on the danda, but the panch a P.W. 5 does not at all speak of any blood on the danda in the course of his evidence. Even though in the panchanama the fact of blood on the danda is mentioned, but that is not a substantive piece of evidence which can be used against the appellant. In view of the above, it is rather difficult to accept the disclosure statement as well as the recovery. 9. The learned Sessions Judge erred in placing reliance on the extra judicial confessional statement as well as on the recovery in pursuance of the disclosure which, in our view, had not been duly established by the prosecution. The evidence led by prosecution does not inspires confidence to sustain the conviction on such evidence. 10. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and the sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge cannot be sustained and the same are liable to be set aside. The conviction and the sentence of the appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. are accordingly, set aside. The accused/appellant is acquitted and ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, in case he is not required in any other case. Appeal allowed.