VIRENDRA SARAN, J. This expedited appeal has come up before us. The appel lant in this case has already remained in jail ever since 13-9-1986, that is about 13years. 2. Applicant Dadhich Singh has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 30-4-1988 of Sri R. L. Ojha, Special/additional Sessions Judge, Hardoi convicting and sentencing the ap pellant under Section 302 1pc, to Im prisonment for Life and under Section 201 IPC to 2 years R. I. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The order was passed in Sessions Trial No. 499 of 1986. 3. The prosecution case is that appel lant Dadhich Singh had thrown some rub bish in front of the house of Arjun Singhs brother Raghunandan. Arjun Singh, who is the first informant of the case and his brother Raghunandan protested against the collection of rubbish in front of the house of Raghunandan Singh. About 2 or 3 days prior to the incident, there was some altercation between the ladies of inform ants house and the appellants house. This is said to be the cause, which led to the crime. On 2-9- 1986 at about 12 noon, in formant Arjun Singh was there in the guava grove. Master Udai Singh to keep a watch over the guava crop which he has. purchased. At that time Arjun Singhs son Pappu aged about 12 years arrived there with days meal for Arjun Singh. Pappu is the deceased of the present case. The further prosecution case is that Pappu started for his house at about 6p. m. with the cattle. Arjun Singh reached his house at about 8 p. m. to find Pappu missing and was in formed by the members of the house-hold that the boy had not returned though the cattle had returned of their own. Arjun Singh set- out in- search of Pappu. While the search was on, Arjun Singh came across Ramesh Lohar and Balwant who informed him that they had seen the appel lant holding Pappu near the grove of Shashi Kant and taking him away. Then he went to the house to the appellant who was not to be found in the village. The search continued and on 3-9-1986 at about 6. 30 a. m. dead body of Pappu was found in the grove of Pratap Singh inside Behaya bushes. There were injuries on the person of Pappu. Then he went to the house to the appellant who was not to be found in the village. The search continued and on 3-9-1986 at about 6. 30 a. m. dead body of Pappu was found in the grove of Pratap Singh inside Behaya bushes. There were injuries on the person of Pappu. Arjun Singh lodged F. I. R. of the incident on 3rd September, 1986 at about 9. 15 p. m. at PS. Atrauli which is at a dis tance of 10 kms. from the village of the informant. In the F. I. R. the informant mentioned that he was sure that Pappu was murdered by the appellant. 4. On the lodging of the F. I. R. inves tigation commenced. The investigating of ficer reached the spot and drew the inquest report and sent the body for post-mortem examination. The post- mortem examina tion of the dead-body of deceased Pappu was conducted on 3-9-1986 at 5 p. m. by PW- 6 Dr. Jitendra Singh. Dr. Jitendara Singh noted the following injuries on the person of deceased Pappu Singh. (1) Incised wound 15 cms x 2 cms x bone deep in the scalp on left parietal region, extend ing from occipital region to the root of the left ear. The brain matter was visible through the wound and out. (2) Incised wound 26. 0 cms x 5 cms x bone deep extending from left eye-brow in the parie tal region and then upto occipital region of the scale, 4 cms. Short of root of right ear. Brain matter was visible through the wound and out. Death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injures. 5. On 13-9-1986 PW-8 S. I. Ram Singh Chaudhary, who was deputed to search for the appellant, arrested the appellant with the help of other witnesses at about 3 p. m. as the appellant as he was seen coming from the direction of Sonikpur and proceeding towards Jalgaon. On being asked, the appellant disclosed his name as Dadhich Singh. The personal search of the appellant yielded nothing incriminating. However, the appellant confessed his guilt to the S. I. Ram Singh Chaudhary and he pointed out the place in his own field from where he dug- out a sword concealed a few inches underneath the earth. The arresting of ficer prepared a memo, which is Ext. Ka -2. 6. The personal search of the appellant yielded nothing incriminating. However, the appellant confessed his guilt to the S. I. Ram Singh Chaudhary and he pointed out the place in his own field from where he dug- out a sword concealed a few inches underneath the earth. The arresting of ficer prepared a memo, which is Ext. Ka -2. 6. After completion of the investiga tion of the case, a charge- sheet was filed against the appellant and in due course, the case was committed to the Court of Session. At the trial the appellant pleaded not guilty and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case and he fur ther stated that after the appellant was sent to jail, his father was got murdered by Arjun Singh in collusion with the police. 7. To prove its case, the prosecution examined eight witnesses. PW- 1 Arjun Singh is the first informant and the father of the deceased P. W. 2 Ramesh Kumar Singh is the witness of having seen the appellant taking away deceased Pappu. The evidence of P. W. 3 Mahi Pal Singh (public witness) and P. W. 8 S. I. Ram Singh Chaudhary is on the point of discovery of the sword at the instance of the appellant. P. W. 4 Ramesh Chandra Verma is simply a formal witness who had taken the dead body for post-mortem examination. RW. 5 Head Constable Ram Singh was the constable clerk at police station Atrauli at the relevant time who prepared the Fard FIR and registered the case. P. W 7 S. I. , B. P. Singh had investigated the case. Firstly , there is evidence of P. W 6 Dr. Jitendra Singh who had conducted the post-mortem examina tion on the dead-body of Pappu. 8. The learned trial Judge believed the prosecution evidence and convicted and sentenced the appellants as men tioned above. The appellant has now came up in appeal to this Court. 9. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned State Coun sel and have perused the evidence on record. 10. Admittedly, there is no eye-wit ness account in the instant case and the prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence. The appellant has now came up in appeal to this Court. 9. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned State Coun sel and have perused the evidence on record. 10. Admittedly, there is no eye-wit ness account in the instant case and the prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence. On the point of motive, the prosecution has come out with the case that the appellant used to throw rubbish infront of the house of Raghunandan Singh, brother of the informant and lot of rubbish had collected there and the in formant and his brother asked the appel lant not to do so but in vain and for this very reason about two or three days prior to the incident, ladies of Arjun Singhs house on one hand and the ladies of appellants house on the other hand quar relled amongst themselves. According to the prosecution case, this was the motive of the crime. It is common knowledge that such petty quarrels are every day affair in village life. In our opinion such a quarrel was not enough to provide strong motive to the appellant to commit a crime like murder and that too of a young boy. The prosecution has not alleged that there was any property dispute with the appellant which might have lead to the murder by the appellant. Thus the motive suggested by the prosecution is quite weak. Had it been a case where there was direct eye-witness account, absence of strong motive could have been regarded insignificant. How ever, the absence of sufficient motive in a case of circumstantial evidence assumes importance. In the case at hand, the evidence of sufficient motive is lacking. 11. Next there is evidence of PW- 2 Ramesh Kumar, who has (sic) Arjun Singhs son Pappu and added that on 2-9-1986, at about 6. 15 p. m. he saw the appel lant holding Pappu and taking him. He saw the appellant and Arjun Singhs son Pappu from before. According to the witness at that time he and one Balwant were sitting on a culvert near a grove of Shashi Kant. The witness has stated that later on when he came across Arjun Singh, who was sear ching for Pappu, he disclosed this fact to him and thereafter on the following morn ing, dead body of Pappu was found lying in the grove of one Pratap Singh. The witness has stated that later on when he came across Arjun Singh, who was sear ching for Pappu, he disclosed this fact to him and thereafter on the following morn ing, dead body of Pappu was found lying in the grove of one Pratap Singh. Learned Counsel of the appellant has urged that the theory of this witness having seen the ap pellant catching and taking away Pappu is unbelievable and has been concocted to impart strength to the otherwise weak prosecution case. It has been submitted that as a matter of fact Pappu remained missing throughout the night and it was only after the recovery of his dead-body from the grove of one Partap Singh that the prosecution came out with the case that PW-2 Ramesh Kumar had seen the appellant holding and taking away Pappu on the previous evening. We have scrutinised the evidence of Ramesh Kumar and in our opinion there exists doubt about the veracit of his version. Had Ramesh Kumar and Balwant really seen the appellant holding a young boy and taking him away they would have questioned the appellant and would have also asked Pappu as to what the matter was Ramesh Kumar tried to give explanation by stating that since the" appellant was related to the deceased as cousin he did not make enquiry. It is not simply a case where the witness had seen two cousins going together but in the in stant case there was element of force as the allegation is that the appellant was holding Pappu and taking him away. The total passiveness on the part of Ramesh Kumar in not asking the reason from the appellant leaves no question mark in our mind regarding truthfulness of his version. The prosecution case is that it was a sword with which the murder of Pappu was com mitted. It is note- worthy that there is not even a whisper in the evidence of Ramesh Kumar that the appellant was armed with any weapon much less in weapon like sword which is sufficiently long and not capable of being concealed underneath the wearing apparel. The description of the sword allegedly used in the crime is mentioned in recovery memo Ext. The description of the sword allegedly used in the crime is mentioned in recovery memo Ext. Ka- 2 according to which it was a full length sword about four cubits in length (Teen balisht Aath Angul) and to add the length, the same was fitted with steel frame and a wooden handle due to which it would be come still longer. There is also discrepancy in the prosecution evidence regarding time and place when Ramesh Kumar in formed Arjun Singh of having seen the appellant holding and taking away Pappu. According to PW-1 Arjun Singh while he was searching for Pappu he came across PW Ramesh Kumar and Balwant Pasi and gathered the above information from them, but according to PW Ramesh Kumar, Arjun Singh came to Ramesh Kumars house and was told about the above fact. Another fact which deserves to be mentioned is that according to the evidence of Arjun Singh, the appellant was> a man of criminal bent of mind and used to kill children of those who took (sic) with him. With that impression about the ap pellant, had it been a fact that Ramesh Kumar told Arjun Singh in the evening itself that appellant was holding and taking away Pappu, Arjun Singh and his companions would have immediately rushed to inform the police but in the instant case the disclosure allegedly made by Ramesh Kumar saw the light of the day when the FIR was lodged at 9. 15, the next day. In view of the discussions made above the evidence of P. W. Ramesh Kumar is of doubtful character and unworthy of credence. 12. Even if, for the sake of arguments, we go by the evidence of Ramesh Kumar, it is not conclusive nature. After taking Pappu to some distance the appellant might have let Pappu go and we do not know what might have happened there after, specially when no evidence if forthcoming that the appellant possessed any sword at the time when he was seen by Ramesh Kumar. 13. Lastly, we may advert to the con fession made by the appellant to P. W. 8, S. I. ,. R. D. Chaudhary and the consequent discovery of a sword from the field of the appellant. The two witnesses on the point are P. W. 3 Mahipal Singh and P. W. 8 S. I. , R. D. Chaudhary. 13. Lastly, we may advert to the con fession made by the appellant to P. W. 8, S. I. ,. R. D. Chaudhary and the consequent discovery of a sword from the field of the appellant. The two witnesses on the point are P. W. 3 Mahipal Singh and P. W. 8 S. I. , R. D. Chaudhary. So far as the confession made by the appellant is concerned, it is inadmissible piece of evidence in view of Sections 25 and 26, Evidence Act. Section 25, Evidence Act states: "confession to police officer not to be proved.-No confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence. " Section 26, Evidence Act, States: "confession by accused while in custody of police not to be proved against him.-No confes sion made by any person whilst he is in custody of a police officer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, shall be proved as against such person. " In the instant case the prosecution evidence is that the appellant was seen going on the road, he tried to escape he was chased and was arrested by S. I. , R. D. Chaudhary and thereafter he made the confessional statement to S. I. , R. D. Chaudhary. 14. There is no cleavage of judicial opinion that such a confessional statement is inadmissible. Learned Counsel for the State has submitted that since a sword was discovered in consequence of the confes sional statement, of the appellant, the prosecution can very well rely upon the confession. We are unable to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the State for the simple reason that it is well settled that if a discovery is made in consonance of any information received from the accused, only so much of the informa tion which leads to the discovery can be proved. Section 27 of the Evidence Act does not do away with the bar of receiving in evidence a confessional statement made by an accused to a police officer or whilst in custody of the police. It only removes the bar partially, that is, to a limited extent. Section 27 of the Evidence Act does not do away with the bar of receiving in evidence a confessional statement made by an accused to a police officer or whilst in custody of the police. It only removes the bar partially, that is, to a limited extent. Section 27 Evidence Act states: "how much of information received from accused may be proved: Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer so much of such information whether it amounts to confession to not, as relates Distinct ly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved. " (Emphasis supplied by us) 15. Thus, Section 27 creates an excep tion to the General Rule that the confes sions made by a accused to a police officer or whilst in police custody are inadmis sible. The exception can be availed of in respect of only so much of such informa tion as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered. Even the past user of a weapon which is discovered from some place at the instance of the accused is inadmissible. The leading case of Pulukuri Kottaya and others v. Emperor, AIR (34) 1947 Privy Council 67, lends countenance to our view. In Kottay s case (supra) the extent to which the evidence under Section 21 is admis sible has been articulated lucidly as under: ". . . . . The section seems to be based on the view that if a fact is actually discovered in conse quence of information given, some guarantee is afforded thereby that the information was true, and accordingly can be safely allowed to be given in evidence;. . . . . In their Lordships view it is fallacious to treat the fact discovered within the Section as equivalent to the object produced; the fact discovered in emphaces the place from which the object is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this, and the information given must relate distinctly to this fact. Information as to past user, or the past history, of the object produced is not related to its discovery in the setting in which it is discovered. Information as to past user, or the past history, of the object produced is not related to its discovery in the setting in which it is discovered. Information supplied by a person in custody that "i will produce a knife concealed in the roof of my house" does not lead to the discovery of a knife; knives were discovered many years ago, leads to the discovery of the fact that a knife is concealed in the house of the informant to his knowledge, and if the knife is proved to have been used in the commission of the offence, the fact dis covered is very relevant. But if to the statement the words be added "with which I stabbed A" these words are inadmissible since they do not relate to the discovery of the knife in the house of the informant. " 16. The Privy Council view has been repeatedly followed by Courts in India in cluding the Apex Court. Thus, the confes sional statement allegedly made by the appellant to the arresting officer cannot be received in evidence except to the extent of such information which lead to the dis covery. It is also worth mentioning that when the appellant had concealed the body of the deceased inside the Behaya bushes in the field of Pratap Singh, it was not difficult for him to bury the sword in that very field. The appellant would not have been so un wise and foolish so as to take the sword to his own field and bury it there. 17. On the point of discovery of the sword at the instance of the appellant, the only public witness is P. W. 3 Mahipal Singh, but the evidence of Mahipal Singh is also far from being satisfactory. Mahipal Singh belongs to village Jangaon which according to the site plan is about 1 kilometre from the spot. He has no field of his own any where near the place of the arrest of the appellant. He has tried to explain his presence by saying that he was going on the road to village Godwan for purchasing manure. His further cross-ex amination shows that the witness could not tell as to how long after his arrest the appellant was taken for the purpose of recovery of the sword. He has tried to explain his presence by saying that he was going on the road to village Godwan for purchasing manure. His further cross-ex amination shows that the witness could not tell as to how long after his arrest the appellant was taken for the purpose of recovery of the sword. It is stated that the appellant was arrested at about 10 or 11 a. m. , but when cross-examined, he showed his inability to tell as to how much time was left for the close of the day when he and the police party reached the field of the appellant and when the discovery of the sword was made. He stated, MUJHE IS BAAT KA AANDAJA NAHIH HAI KI JAB MUM MULJIM KE DHAN KE KHET PAR PAHUNCHE TAB DIN KITNA RAH GAYA THA "he also could not tell whether there was paddy crop in the entire field of the appellant. The inability of the witness to disclose these facts which everybody remember in the normal course creates doubt of his actual presence at the lime and place of discovery of the sword at the instance of the appellant. 18. The sword was sent for medical chemical examination and the Chemical Examiner reported that Benzaine test of the scrapping of the sword was found posi tive, but it is further mentioned in the report that no blood was found on the sword. In view of this, it cannot be affirm atively held that the sword which was dis covered in consequence of information furnished by the appellant was the weapon with which the murder had been com mitted. 19. Even if a sword was found buried in the field of the appellant, at the most it can be said that he had knowledge of the fact that a sword was buried in his field. That by itself may not be enough to convict the appellant for the offence of murder. On the other hand, if such a sword was found buried in the field of the appellant, it may create a strong suspicion due to which the appellant may have been implicated in the present case. That by itself may not be enough to convict the appellant for the offence of murder. On the other hand, if such a sword was found buried in the field of the appellant, it may create a strong suspicion due to which the appellant may have been implicated in the present case. The various links of cir cumstantial evidence are not fully estab lished by the evidence adduced by the prosecution and secondly, they are not complete to form a complete chain of cir cumstances to bring home the guilt of the appellant beyond the shadow of doubt. In the instant case we entertain a reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the appellant. 20. Before parting with, we would like to mention that at the trial the appellant was represented by an amicus curie who has left many important aspects un touched on which cross- examination of the witnesses ought to have been made. The Courts should take care in the matter of appointment of amicus curie in cases of serious offences like murder which may be meted with severe punishment. 21. Accordingly, giving the appellant the benefit of doubt, we allow this appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302 IPC and acquit the appellant. The appellant is in jail. He shall be released forthwith unless required in any other connection. Appeal allowed. .