Sharfuddin Ahmed, J.- Referred Trial No. 22 of 1965 and Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 1966 arise out of the judgment and order of the Sessions Judge, Srikakulam dated 6th December, 1965 made in S.C. No. 37 of 1965, whereby the appellant P. Sanyasi Rao, hereinafter called the accused, has been found guilty under sections 302 and 392 read with 397, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to death subject to confirmation. The prosecution alleged that the deceased Kanakamma and the accused were residents of the same village, viz-, Chilluvaripeta having the houses more or less in the same vicinity. The deceased and her husband had taken P.W. 3 in adoption at the time when they had no children. Later one son and three daughters were born to them, the son being P.W. 4 Baswaraju. After the birth of the children, P.W. 3 was given some property and sent out. The three daughters were married in due course and they were residing with their husband while Kanakamma, the deceased was living with P.W. 4 till about five years back. Later she was given a room for residential purposes and a sum of Rs. 3,000 in cash and some gold ornaments as part of the family property by way of maintenance. The room in which the deceased was living is adjacent to the houses of P.Ws. 3 and 4. Only a wall separating the house of P.W. 4 and that of the deceased. The main entrances to all the houses face to the northern direction. The portion in occupation of the deceased consisted of one room and one ‘Vasara’ (back room) on the southern side. The room had no windows and the southern side had double doors one over the other. The deceased had deposited her cash with her son-in-law and was managing to live on the interest she was getting thereon. She was, however supplementing her income by selling sundry articles like cigars, bidies, tea packets and other edibles while her sons were having their separate Kirana shops at some distance from their houses. It is stated that when P.Ws. 3 and 4 returned after closing their shop between 2 and 8 p.m., on 2nd May, 1965, they saw their mother sleeping on a cot in front of the house. The next day on 3rd May, 1965,P.W. 1 was asked by her mother to get ‘Vadiyala Jangidi’ from the deceased. It is stated that when P.Ws. 3 and 4 returned after closing their shop between 2 and 8 p.m., on 2nd May, 1965, they saw their mother sleeping on a cot in front of the house. The next day on 3rd May, 1965,P.W. 1 was asked by her mother to get ‘Vadiyala Jangidi’ from the deceased. Accordingly P.W. 1 who is a grandson of the deceased and is aged about 18 years, went to her room and found that though the lower portion of the door was closed, the under door was slightly open. He opened the upper door and looked in to see his grandmother lying dead in a pool of blood. Horror stricken he rushed to his uncle, P.W. 4 who was in his shop and told him of the incident. P.W. 2 also, who was in the coffee hotel, over-heard the news and came up to P.W. 4. P.W. 4 asked him to bring the village munsif, P.W. 25 from Lingalavalasa, which is at some distance from the said village. He accordingly went away to fetch the village Munsiff while P.Ws. 3 and 4 proceeded to the room which the deceased was occupying. Meanwhile many others collected on hearing the news. At about 8 a.m., P.W. 2 returned with the V.M. and reached the scene of offence. The body of the deceased was lying on the southern side of the room. It was resting on the front side, the head being towards the southern door way and next to the northern door. The head was cut from the back side and was connected loosely with the trunk by the skin in front of the neck. The right hand was cut into two pieces and left hand into one piece. P.W. 4 the son gave a statement which was recorded by the village Munsiff under Exhibit P-1. On that basis Grime reports were prepared and sent to the Police and the Magistrate concerned while a village servant was made to keep watch over the dead body till the arrival of the Police.The Sub-Inspector of Police,Kotabommali received the report at 7 p.m. on 3rd May, 1965 and after registering the crime and sending express reports reached the scene of offence at 1 a.m. on 4th May, 1965. An inquest was held and the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination to the concerned Medical Officer. An inquest was held and the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination to the concerned Medical Officer. Meanwhile the Inspector of Police, P.W. 28, reached Chellavanipeta at 8 a.m. and verified the investigation made by P.W. 29. He noticed a blood-stained foot print on the floor in the room where the dead body was found and carefully lifted it for the purpose of comparison. Some gold ornaments, such as Kasulu Peru, (bracelet, necklace, etc.) belonging to the deceased were found missing and, therefore, the conclusion was that it was a murder for gain. However, till 4th June, 1966, i.e., for more than a month there was no trace of any offender. P.W. 30 succeeded P.W. 28 as Circle Inspector of Police, Tikkali, on 19th June, 1965 and took up investigation of the case on 5th July, 1965. He arrested the accused on 8th July, 1965 and at his instance recovered some gold ingots under Exhibit P-5, from P.Ws. 9 and 10 to whom they had been sold by the accused. The stolen ornaments viz. (neckband) two pieces of Nanu were brought into the shape of ingots with the assistance of P.Ws. 6 and 8. P.W. 8 gave the two copper rods of ‘murugulu’ i.e. bracelets which had been left behind by the accused. This was recovered under Exhibit P-3, dated 8th July, 1965. Subsequently i.e., a day later the Police along with the accused, village karnam and others proceeded to Chellavanipeta and at his instance recovered a big knife, M.O. 4 from P.W. 5, a washerman which the accused was alleged to have taken for the purpose of cutting branches of trees. M O. 4 was seized under a mahazar, Exhibit P-29. At about 9 a.m., on the same day, the accused took them to the Government well and pointed to the nearby cess pool wherein he had thrown the stones and screw of the Nanu and on search, M.Os. 3 and 18, i.e., a small piece of red stone and screw were recovered therefrom and seized under a inahazar, Exhibit P-31. Further a wrist watch said to have been given by the accused for repairs to P.W. 1 was recovered to indicate that the accused had come in possession of surplus money for incurring the expenditure. P.Ws. 3 and 18, i.e., a small piece of red stone and screw were recovered therefrom and seized under a inahazar, Exhibit P-31. Further a wrist watch said to have been given by the accused for repairs to P.W. 1 was recovered to indicate that the accused had come in possession of surplus money for incurring the expenditure. P.Ws. 11, 12 and 14 to 17 were examined to establish that the accused had redeemed a pledge and purchased cloth for getting some garments stitched for himself and also settled some old debts out of the ill-gotten money. On 9th July, 1965 the accused was sent for judicial remand to the Judicial Second Glass Magistrate, Narasannapeta and a requisition was issued to the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Srikakulam, P.W. 21, requesting him to record the confessional statement of the accused. The accused was accordingly produced before the Magistrate on 13th July, 1965 with some delay as initially the place where the accused was confined was not mentioned in the requisition. The Magistrate recorded the confessional statement of the accused on 14th October, 1965 after giving him the necessary warning and time for deliberation. Exhibit P-10 is the statement. The foot-print of the accused was sent to the Footprint Expert, Hyderabad under ExhibitP-37, dated 17th July, 1965 along with the foot impression that lad been lifted from the scene of offence. P.W. 27 compared the footprints and gave the opinion Exhibit P-42 that there were similarities in general shape, size and alignment of the toes and other features, and that the foot-prints might be of the same person. On this record, a charge-sheet was laid against the accused on 23rd July, 1965, and on the same day the gold necklace, Kasula Peru, M.O. 2 was discovered in a dealwood box in the room of the deceased which was being cleaned for performing shanti. This information was conveyed to the Police and it was duly seized under a mediator’s report, Exhibit P-33 dated 24th July, 1965. As many as 30 witnesses were examined on behalf of prosecution to substantiate the charge. The accused pleaded not guilty and stated that the confession recorded by the Magistrate was a result of coercion on the part of the Police. As many as 30 witnesses were examined on behalf of prosecution to substantiate the charge. The accused pleaded not guilty and stated that the confession recorded by the Magistrate was a result of coercion on the part of the Police. The learned Sessions Judge, as stated above found him guilty under both the charges levelled against him, viz., sections 302, Indian Penal Code, and section 302 read with 397, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to death under section 302 Indian Penal Code, awarding no separate sentence for the 2nd charge. It may be stated at the outset that there is no direct evidence in the case. The conviction is based merely on circumstantial evidence. However, there is no denying the fact that the deceased Kanakamma died as a result of violence. The opinion of the Civil Assistant Surgeon, P.W. 22 who conducted autopsy on the dead body of Kanakamma on 4th May, 1965 is conclusive in this regard. According to him at the level of 5th cervical vertebra on the back of the neck there was a transverse incised gaping wound severing muscles, vessels and the upper part of the 5th cervical vertebra clearly and completely leaving alone the gaping skin behind and at sides. There was also a semi-circular incised wound over back of upper part of left shoulder exposing the spine of scapula and muscles 2½" X 1½" X ¼" deep. There was also complete severance of the right fore-arm and left fore-arm with corresponding incised wounds. He stated that death was due to shock and hemorrhage and must have been instantaneous as a result of injuries by a sharp edged, long and heavy weapon. The only question, therefore, for consideration is whether the evidence on record is sufficient to connect the accused with the commission of the offence, so as to sustain the conviction. As stated supra, in the absence of direct evidence the conviction is based mainly on: (i) the confessional statement, Exhibit P-10, recorded by the Judicial Second Glass Magistrate, Srikakulam; (ii) the recoveries of stolen articles, such as , gold ingots and other M.Os. particularly M.Os. 3 and 18 at the instance of the accused; (iii) the admission made by the accused before the committal Court in his statement under section 342, Indian Penal Code; (iv) the conduct of the accused subsequent to the commission of the crime. particularly M.Os. 3 and 18 at the instance of the accused; (iii) the admission made by the accused before the committal Court in his statement under section 342, Indian Penal Code; (iv) the conduct of the accused subsequent to the commission of the crime. The learned Counsel for the accused contends that the confessional statement is not voluntary and having been resiled from at the earliest opportunity i.e., before the committal Magistrate, the necessary corroboration is not forthcoming and no weight can be attached to the recoveries. The statement made before the Magistrate cannot form the basis of conviction and no adverse inference can be drawn against the accused on account of the alleged expenditure towards clothing etc. In short, his submission is that the data on record is not sufficient to sustain the conviction. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has urged that the judicial confession has been recorded with due care and caution after giving the necessary warning to the accused and awarding sufficient time for contemplation. The Magistrate who recorded the statement has noted that the confession was of a voluntary nature. It has been sufficiently corroborated by the recovery of the stolen articles and therefore the conviction and sentence do not call for interference. It is beyond controversy that the statement of the accused was recorded by the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Srikakulam under Exhibit P-10 on 14th July, 1965, on a requisition sent by the Inspector of Police, Tikkali, Exhibit P-6 dated 8th July, 1965. It was returned as the place where the accused was remanded was not mentioned therein. The information was furnished on the same date and the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Srikakulam issued a production warrant and Subsequently the accused was produced before him in 13th July, 1965. The Magistrate then questioned the accused and thereafter on the next day i.e., 14th July, 1965 recorded his statement. The relevant portion of it may usefully be set out: “I alone killed the Komati woman......I went inside with knife and cut off the throat. ‘Nanu’ was in the box. There were bracelets for hands. I took away the ‘nanu’ and the bracelets after hacking the hands. I went home. 11 days afterwards ‘nanu’ was cut into two pieces, and the two pieces were sold in Tekkali. I threw away the screw and stones of ‘nanu’ in a pit near the well.... ‘Nanu’ was in the box. There were bracelets for hands. I took away the ‘nanu’ and the bracelets after hacking the hands. I went home. 11 days afterwards ‘nanu’ was cut into two pieces, and the two pieces were sold in Tekkali. I threw away the screw and stones of ‘nanu’ in a pit near the well.... After killing, I kept the knife in between those two houses. First time I got Rs. 300 and second time 380.” There is an endorsement, Exhibit P-12 wherein the Magistrate has stated that he believed that the confession of the accused was made voluntarily. But it is to be borne in mind that when the accused was produced b?fore the Magistrate on 13th July, 1965 at 4-45 p.m., in reply to questions put by the Magistrate he said that the Inspector of Police had asked him to make a statement and further on 14th July, 1965 i.e., a day subsequent to it when questioned as to why he was making a confessional statement he replied that the Police have said: “Avoid receiving beatings. Carefully state what you know”. In reply to a further question whether the Police or anybody indicated that he would be taken as approver, he told the Magistrate that they said “We will take you as a witness. Tell the truth”. He, however, made it clear that the statement was being made not because of that inducement. The replies given above would indicate the state of mind of the accused shortly before his statement was recorded. No doubt he has said that he was making the statement not as a result of coercion or inducement but because he had committed a wrong. But on a consideration of the environments in which the accused was placed it is difficult to hold that his mind had completely dissociated itself from the fear of beating and inducement of being taken as an approver at the time he made the confessional statement and that the confessional statement was the result of sheer penitence or remorse on his part. It is well settled that a statement made by the accused under section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act must be voluntary and true to be entitled to any consideration. The voluntary nature of the statement can only be gathered from the circumstances of the case. It is well settled that a statement made by the accused under section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act must be voluntary and true to be entitled to any consideration. The voluntary nature of the statement can only be gathered from the circumstances of the case. When an accused makes statement immediately on being produced from Police custody, that statement is not likely to be voluntary notwithstanding any assertion to the contrary made by the accused. It has, therefore, been laid down in the Criminal Rules of Practice that sufficient time should be given to the accused for deliberation. What amount to sufficient time in a particular case has to be adjudged from the circumstances of the proceedings. In the instant case, though sufficient time was given for deliberation, it is apparent from the answers given by the accused on the date his statement was recorded that he had not completely got over the warning and the inducement offered by the Police. In the result, though the Magistrate has made an endorsement that the statement made by the accused was voluntary, we are not inclined to accept it as such. The next question is how far the statement is true. This matter can only be ascertained by examining the confession in comparison with the rest of the prosecution evidence and the probabilities of the case. According to the confessional statement referred to supra, eleven days after the incident the accused cut the ‘nanu’ into two pieces and they were sold in Tikkali. The evidence is to the effect that they were melted and converted into ingots and thereafter they were sold. He has, as stated above, redeemed the watch by paying Rs. 45. The evidence is slightly different. In regard to the screw and stone he said that he threw them into a pit near the well. These were actually recovered from a cess pool. The knife with which the offence was committed was ‘kept in between two houses’ according to the concessional statement, but it was recovered from the washerman. Thus there are material deviations between the statement and the rest of the evidence. The improbabilities of the case also do not lend support to the veracity of the confessional statement. The accused is aged 21 years. Thus there are material deviations between the statement and the rest of the evidence. The improbabilities of the case also do not lend support to the veracity of the confessional statement. The accused is aged 21 years. He kills a woman at about 10 in the night in a room which is surrounded on almost all the sides by her close relations with a big knife which he borrows from the local washerman. After the commission of the crime he continues to be in the village peacefully for nearly a month without attracting attention in any way. The knife he leaves between two bouses is not noted by anyone and the washerman takes it away quietly without finding any blood stain on it. Further, his statement is vague so far as the details are concerned. He admits selling away the two pieces of ‘nanu’ but does not mention to whom the articles were sold. He speaks of redeeming the watch pledged and stitching of clothes etc., without mentioning the names of persons to whom the payment was made. He speaks of throwing away the screw and the stone in a pit near the well with out specifying where the well is situated or to which village it belonged. He speaks of keeping the knife in between two houses without mentioning to which houses he was referring. On a consideration of these inherent defects in the statement we find it difficult to accept it as true. Even otherwise, the confessional statement has been resiled from at the earliest instance. Therefore, no conviction could be based on such a retracted confession unless material corroboration was forthcoming. It is urged that the recovery of the stolen articles at the instance of the accused is sufficient to sustain the: charges. P.Ws. 6, 8, 9 and 10 have been examined in this connection. P.W. 6 is the goldsmith residing in the village of Chinna Laxmipuram near Tikkali. The father-in-law of the accused belongs to this village and therefore he is aquainted with the accused and seems to have made some rings for the marriage of the accused. According to him at about midday in June the accused came to him and asked him whether he was willing to go to Tikkali. He wanted to know for what purpose the accused was taking him to Tikkali. According to him at about midday in June the accused came to him and asked him whether he was willing to go to Tikkali. He wanted to know for what purpose the accused was taking him to Tikkali. The accused said, he had some business and then both of them went to Tikkali, which is at a distance of three miles from the village. On the way, the accused told him that he had some gold to sell. He showed him two pieces of ‘nanu’ which appeared to have been cut with stone. The accused told him that an Electrical line man had pledged that jewel with him and wanted him to dispose them of and that he could not come due to some other engagement. P.W. 6 told him that no one would buy cut-pieces like that. Thereupon the accused asked him to get the pieces melted. Accordingly they went to the house of P.W. 8 who is related to P.W. 6. He melted the ‘nanu’ and converted them into ingots weighing 2 tolas and 14 annas. Then they went to the shop of P.W. 9 who purchased the same at Rs. 133 per tola. P.W. 6 got Rs. 5 out of the bargain. It is to be noted that P.W. 6 did not mention of this incident to the father-in-law of the accused. Though there was no direction by the accused not to divulge the information. He had not made the ‘nanu’ and so he was not in a position to indentify it. He was aware of the fact that there was a Gold Control Order which prohibited melting and sale of gold. Notwithstanding this information he helped the accused without being very friendly with him. P.W. 8 is the goldsmith at Tikkali who melted the ‘nanu’ pieces and gave them to the accused. A week later the accused brought two ‘murugulus’ and ‘nanu billas’ and asked him to melt and make kasulu with that gold. He removed the gold cover of the ‘murugulu’ but declined to make kasulu as he had no time. The accused took away the gold and the stones saying that he would go to the market leaving copper rods (kadees) with him. He removed the gold cover of the ‘murugulu’ but declined to make kasulu as he had no time. The accused took away the gold and the stones saying that he would go to the market leaving copper rods (kadees) with him. It has been elicited from him in the cross-examination that he was not aware of the name of the accused nor he had made the articles that had been brought to him for melting so as to be able to identify them. There is no record to show the weight of the gold or the charges taken by him for doing this job. P.W. 9 is a goldsmith who purchased the gold and from whom the recovery was effected but this transaction was not entered in his account books. He claimed that he had purchased the articles for his personal use. Even then the expenditure has not been entered in the personal account as it was made with his ‘Ladies Money’ as mentioned by him. P.W. 10, the son of P.W. 9, also speaks of purchasing gold from the accused without making any entry in the account books. Admittedly this recovery could not be held to be at the instance of the accused for the investigating; officer has conceded that he was aware of the part played by the witnesses even before the recovery was made. If the witnesses are to be believed in the absence of any documentary evidence the only thing that could be urged is that the accused had sold some gold to P.Ws. 9 and 10 with the assistance of the other P.Ws. This in itself would not be sufficient for sustaining the guilt of the accused. Much reliance has been placed on the fact that a screw and red stone pertaining; to the ‘nanu’ were recovered from a cess-pool at the instance of the accused. P.W. 25, the village munsif, has stated that the accused took them to a cess-pool near the well into which the used water from the well flows and told them that he had thrown the seela of ‘nanu’, the silver reku of ‘murugulu’ and the stones of ‘nanu’ into that pool. Accordingly the cess-pool was searched and one screw and one red stone was found M.Os. 3 and 18, which were seized under the Mahazar Exhibit P-31.PW. Accordingly the cess-pool was searched and one screw and one red stone was found M.Os. 3 and 18, which were seized under the Mahazar Exhibit P-31.PW. 18 has been examined to prove that the screw was of the nanu he had made for the deceased 7 or 8 years prior to the incident. According to him the screw was of gold and the head was of silver which, however, does not tally with the description of the screw recovered from the cess-pool. Further he conceded that every ‘nanu’ will have a similar type of screw and stone. Considering the size of the screw barely 3/4" in length, it is difficult to hold that the said screw was of the ‘nanu’ made by the witnesses 7 or 8 years prior to the incident. Similar is the position with regard to the red stone. The place of recovery is a cess-pool at the Government well near the houses of a number of persons. The recovery from such a place of the articles of the nature described supra is not of any material value. The other incriminating factor sought to be pressed against the accused is that he made some purchases and settled some old debts indicating acquisition of monies by the sale of ill-gotten gold. P.W. 11 has spoken about the accused giving him a wrist watch for repairs. It is not the case of the prosecution that the accused purchased the wrist watch out of the monies he had realised. Obviously he was having a wrist watch and had given it to P.W. 11 for repairs and there could be nothing wrong in doing so. P.W. 14 has spoken about the accused purchasing Rs. 30 worth of cloth from him but he conceded that the accused was purchasing cloth from his shop even earlier. P.W. 15 also has spoken about it and conceded that the accused was making purchase from his shop even earlier, P.W. 16 has spoken about the pledging of a ring and of the accused redeeming it on payment of Rs. 30, hut considering his status it cannot be safely held that he was in a position to advance the sum of Rs. 30. There is no documentary evidence to substantiate it. P.W. 17 has spoken about the accused returning a loan of Rs. 15 after a lapse of six months. 30, hut considering his status it cannot be safely held that he was in a position to advance the sum of Rs. 30. There is no documentary evidence to substantiate it. P.W. 17 has spoken about the accused returning a loan of Rs. 15 after a lapse of six months. Considering the nature of the evidence, we find it difficult to hold that the expenses incurred by the accused either by way of purchases or settlement of debts was the direct result of his becoming affluent by the sale of the ill-gotten gold. The last item of recovery pertains to the seizure of the knife said to have been used by the accused for the commission of the offence. P.W. 5 has spoken about it. According to him the accused had borrowed a knife from him for cutting branches. It was borrwed on a Friday. The next day he asked the accused for the knife. The accused said that he had not finished his business. On Monday morning he found the knife near the partition wall of the two houses belonging to him. So he took it away without divulging to anybody that he had lent the knife to the accused or that the knife was found near the partition wall of the two houses. The manner of recovery is also interesting. The accused took the panchayatdars and the Police to the house of P.W. 5 and asked him to produce the knife. P.W. 5 thereupon produced two knives but the G.I. did not believe them to be the real knife. Then the accused asked P.W. 5 to bring the real knife P.W. 5 brought the real knife and the C. I. believed it to be the real knife and seized it under a mahazar, Exhiit P-29. Further, no blood stains were found on the blade of M.O. 4. Strangely enough, the Chemical Examiners seems to have noticed traces of blood on the same. The suggestion, therefore that it was smeared with blood subsequent to the recovery is not entirely unfounded. Whatever may be the case, the recovery of M.O. 4, in no way supports the case of prosecution. The learned Sessions Judge has placed reliance on certain admissions made by the accused during the examination by the J.S.C.M., Narasannapeta. The questions and answers recorded by the Magistrate may be usefully extracted here: Q. 4. Whatever may be the case, the recovery of M.O. 4, in no way supports the case of prosecution. The learned Sessions Judge has placed reliance on certain admissions made by the accused during the examination by the J.S.C.M., Narasannapeta. The questions and answers recorded by the Magistrate may be usefully extracted here: Q. 4. “The record of the Police discloses that after some days you went to your father-in-law’s village, Chinna Lakshmipuram on the way you broke the gold ‘nanu’ into two pieces and separated the ‘billa’ and ‘sela’; from there you went to Tekkali. Through Kosuru Brahmam you got the ‘nanu’ pieces melted by Karumoju Suryanarayana and sold them for Rs. 382-6-0 in the shop of Balisetti Appanna. What do you say?” A. “Bagadi Karrenna, and a Yatha boy named Tatayya gave that gold to me and I sold.” Q. 6. “The record of the police discloses that you returned to your village; again went to Tekkali and took a ‘nanu billa’ and ‘murugulu’ to Mirrumeja Suryanarayana; he removed the gold from the ‘murugulu’ and refused to melt; you took them to Bonduru Appalaswamy; he melted and gave the gold to you; and you sold that old to Balichetti Ganapati for Rs. 406. What do you say?”- A. “I sold that gold and gave to Karrenna and Tatayya”. Q, 9. “The record of the Police discloses that on your information Karumoju Suryanarayana was traced and the copper rods of the gold ‘murugulu’ were seized; on your information Bonduru Appalaswamy, Bolisetti Appanna, and Bolisetti Ganapathi were traced and the gold ingots sold by you were seized. What dou you say?” A. “It is true.” Q.21. “P.W. 3 (Karumoju Suryanarayana) deposes that you and P.W. 2 came to him for purposes of melting the two pieces of ‘nanu’ which appeared to have been cut into pieces by means of stone; he melted them and the gold weighed 2-14-0; and it is M.O. 2. What do you say?” A. “It is true.” Q. 22. “P.W. 3 deposes, that after fifteen days you brought two gold ‘murugulu’ and gold ‘nanu billa’ and asked him to melt that gold and prepare ‘kasulu’ What do you say.” A. “It is false”. Q. 23. “P.W. 3 deposes that gold billa had ‘Ramapattabhishekamu‘on one side, and idol of Lakshmi on another side, and it contained red stones including a big stone. Q. 23. “P.W. 3 deposes that gold billa had ‘Ramapattabhishekamu‘on one side, and idol of Lakshmi on another side, and it contained red stones including a big stone. What do you say?” A. “It had a big red stone but I did not see what figures were there.” The learned Counsel for the appellant-accused has urged that some of the questions are not based on any evidence; that they have not been specifically put to the accused while he was being examined under section 342 of Criminal Procedure Code by the Sessions Judge and lastly they are of the nature of cross-examination of the accused which is not permissible. For example, with reference to question No. 9 it is contended that there was no evidence to show that the witnesses Suryanarayana, P.W. 8 and Kondulu Appalaswami and Bolchetti Appanna were discovered at the instance of the accused. It was a matter only in the Police record. The Magistrate was, therefore, not justified in putting such a question to the accused and the Sessions Judge in relying on the statement so made. The examination of the accused under section 207-A (6) and 342, Criminal Procedure Code, is for the purpose of enabling him to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him and obviously every thing contained in the police record does not constitute evidence. The Magistrate was, therefore, not justified in putting such questions to the accused with reference to the statement recorded by the Police. Similarly questions of general nature are not permissible and any statement made by the accused in reply to such questions should not as a rule of prudence be used as evidence against him unless his attention has been clearly brought to them. With reference to Question No. 22 the contention is that once a reply has been given in the negative the second question did not arise and, therefore the answer elicited by the Magistrate in reply to Question No. 23, was in the nature of cross-examination. If Question No. 22 is taken as a whole and the answer to it is to cover the entire question, then Question No. 23 would certainly be uncalled for. If Question No. 22 is taken as a whole and the answer to it is to cover the entire question, then Question No. 23 would certainly be uncalled for. Question No. 22 as stated supra, refers to the deposition of P.W. 3 which is to the effect that the accused brought two gold ‘murugulu’ and gold ‘nanu’ and asked him to melt it and prepare kasulu therefrom. The answer to it is that it was false. The Magistrate should not have pursued the matter by engaging that the gold ‘billa’ had certain distinctive features and elicited a reply that it had a big red stone etc. When the factum of bringing the gold billa etc., had been denied there was no question of examining the accused further on that aspect. The learned Prosecutor has contended that the reply in the negative to Question No. 22 pertains to the last part of the question viz., of the preparation of kasulu and therefore, the Magistrate was justified in putting the next question the answer to Question No. 23 does support his contention, but it could be that the answer pertained to the entire question and the reply to Question No. 23 was given as a result of a searching question by the Magistrate. To avoid such contingencies it has been repeatedly laid down that the examination of the accused under section 342, Criminal Procedure Code should not be by reading out a long string of questions and that each circumstance appearing against him should be clearly and concisely put to him so as to obviate any confusion or misunderstanding on his part. This is equally applicable to the examination of the accused under section 257 -A (6). Having regard to the nature of questions put to the accused, we are inclined to hold that the provisions of section 207-A (6), Criminal Procedure Code, have not been sufficiently complied with in this case. It was, therefore, necessary for the trial Court to specifically invite the attention of the accused to each and every incriminating answer given by him before the committaE Magistrate without putting the entire deposition to him and eliciting a reply that it was correct. It was, therefore, necessary for the trial Court to specifically invite the attention of the accused to each and every incriminating answer given by him before the committaE Magistrate without putting the entire deposition to him and eliciting a reply that it was correct. No doubt the entire statement made by the accused before the committal Court is admissible but if the Court wanted to rely on an admission it must be read as a whole and it was not permissible to take into consideration only those portions thereof which were inculpatory rejecting the other portions which were beneficial to the accused. On those considerations we are of the opinion that the so called admissions made by the accused are not in itself sufficient to sustain the conviction. The last incriminating circumstance sought to be pressed against the accused is an alleged similarity between his foot-print and that of the foot-print found at the scene of offence close to the dead body. But the learned Sessions Judge has refused to place any reliance on this evidence as the science of foot-prints is in itself in a nebulous state. Further his observation is that the data available in this case is not clear and clinching and the opinion of the expert, P.W. 27, is not definite. The learned Public Prosecutor fairly conceded that the opinion of the expert P.W. 27, could not form the basis of any definite conclusion. Thus on a consideration of the entire evidence, we are of the opinion that notwithstanding the fact that a gruesome murder has been committed, a case beyond reasonable doubt has not been made out against the accused. The appeal is accordingly allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence and acquitting the accused of both the charges levelled against him. He will be set at liberty if not involved in any other case. The Referred trial stands dismissed. K.N.R. ----- Appeal allowed; Referred Trial dismissed.