Sadasivayya, J.-This is an appeal against the conviction of the present appellant in Sessions Case No. 58 of 1956 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Dharwar. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are as follows: The present appellant along with two other persons who were accused Nos.2 and 3 in the said Sessions case, had been charged for an offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, or in the alternative, for an offence punishable under section 201 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The case of the prosecution was that between the 7th and 8th of September, 1956, these three accused persons had intentionally caused the death of one Sangappa Hanamappa Haglad of Halligudi village while the said Sangappa was proceeding on his bicycle from Venkatapur to Halligudi, and that thereafter all the accused persons removed the dead body of Sangappa and burnt it in a hay stack with the intention to cause disappearance of the evidence of the commission of the murder. There were no eye-witneses to the commission of the alleged offence. The evidence and circumstances on which the prosecution case rested were, briefly, as follows: There was ill-will between the deceased Sangappa and A-1 (the present appellant) and A-1’s father. At the instance of A-1’s father proceedings had been initiated against Sangappa, under section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code; in those proceedings, 6th September, 1956, had been fixed by the Executive Magistrate at Mundargi as the date for passing final orders. Therefore, Sangappa had been to Mundargi on his bicycle from the village of Halligudi. The final orders were not passed on that day and the passing of final orders was postponed to another date. Sangappa and P.W. 2 Neelappa both left Mundargi and spent the night at Hatti. On the next morning, i.e., on 7th September, 1956, they started for Halligudi and on the way they halted at Venkatapur and had their lunch in the house of Laxmimma, P.W. 3. Thereafter, P.W. 2 left Laxmamma’s house first and proceeded to Halligudi. Sangappa left Laxmamma’s house about an hour or so afterwards, but he never reached Halligudi and has not been heard of since then. Thereafter, P.W. 2 left Laxmamma’s house first and proceeded to Halligudi. Sangappa left Laxmamma’s house about an hour or so afterwards, but he never reached Halligudi and has not been heard of since then. According to the evidence of P.W. 2, on his way from Venkatapur to Halligudi, he saw the three accused persons sitting together near a tank known as “Bhavikatti Tank” which is about 2 miles from Venkatapur, and at that time A-1 had an axe in his hand and the accused persons had also a bullock-cart with them, which belonged to A-1’s father. At about the time of the mid-night of 7th September, 1956, P.W. 8 who had got up to answer calls of nature saw a big blaze of fire towards Hallikeri village. On the morning of 8th September, 1956, P.W. 8 went to his uncle’s land S.No. 202 of Hallikeri for ploughing and found that the hay-stack of his uncle had been burnt. When he went there he also saw a half burnt human body and a half-burnt bicycle in that stack. Thereafter he went and informed the Police Patil P.W. 9 who made a, report as per Exhibit 17 and sent the same to the Police Out-post at Dambal which was about 10 miles from Hallikeri. The information reached the Police Sub-Inspector P.W. 15, at about 9 p.m. on 8th September, 1956. He registered a case and proceeded to Hallikeri via., Halligudi. He reached Halligudi at 5 a.m. on the next day, and he informed the villagers at Halligudi that a half-burnt human body and a bicycle were found near Hallikeri. P.W. 1 the brother of Sangappa came and informed him that Sangappa who had left his house on the 6th had not returned. There after P.W. 15 took P.Ws.1 and 2 with him to Hallikeri where, P.W. 1 identified the bicycle as that of his brother and the dead body as that of his brother Sangappa. He then gave the complaint Exhibit 7. P.W. 15 took A-1 into his custody on the night of the 9th alone, though the formal arrest of A-1 took place on the 10th. On 11th September, 1956, the Police Patil of Halligudi produced a bullock-cart belonging to A-1 and it was found that there were some bloodstains on the innerside of the right wheel; Exhibit 31 is the panchanama pertaining to the attachment of this cart. On 11th September, 1956, the Police Patil of Halligudi produced a bullock-cart belonging to A-1 and it was found that there were some bloodstains on the innerside of the right wheel; Exhibit 31 is the panchanama pertaining to the attachment of this cart. On the 13th of September, 1956, A-1 led the panchas to a place (which was about 2 miles from Venkatapur) near the road between Venkatapur and Halligudi and pointed out a spot at which some bloodstained earth and human hair was attached by the police, and then he took the panchas to his house and produced an axe-head, which was smeared with ashes, from a cup-board in his house; then he took them to a field known as “Yeri Hola” which was about a mile to the east of Halligudi village and pointed out a spot from which the police officers took out some lumps of burnt millet seeds and a small quantity of burnt ashes. Exhibit 30 is the panchanama which pertairs to these transactions. On the night of 13th September, A-1 was produced before the Mahalkari of Mundargi (P.W. 13) and his confession as per Exhibit 28 was partly recorded, that night. A-1 was again produced on 14th September, 1956, before P.W. 13 and the rest of A-1’s confession was recorded on 14th September, 1956. In the course of his examination by the learned Sessions Judge, A-1 stated that the confession made by him was neither true nor voluntary and that he had made that statement under the pressure of the police. The learned Sessions Judge took the view that the confession was voluntary and true and he accepted the prosecution evidence in so far as this accused was concerned. Giving the benefit of doubt to accused 2 and 3 he acquitted them and convicted the present appellant for offences under sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. Giving the benefit of doubt to accused 2 and 3 he acquitted them and convicted the present appellant for offences under sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. The main contentions which have been urged by the learned counsel for the appellant are the following: (1) that the confession Exhibit 28 which has been recorded by P.W. 13 does not satisfy the requirements of law; that it is neither voluntary nor true and that the learned Sessions Judge should not have placed any reliance on it; (2) that the learned Sessions Judge should not have drawn any inference against the accused from the recovery of the axe, the discovery of certain bloodstains on the wheel of the cart and from the discovery of ashes of burnt ‘navane’ in a field near the one in which was the burnt hay-stack; (3) that the evidence adduced by the prosecution to show that Sangappa, on his way back from Mundargi had purchased ‘navane’ at Venkatapur is not worthy of belief and that the Sessions Judge should not have placed any reliance on it; and (4) that the identity of the burnt corpse has not been satisfactorily established and that the learned Sessions Judge erred in taking the view that the half burnt corpse found in the hay-stack was that of Sangappa. After going through the entire evidence in the case and hearing the arguments on both sides, we find that there is much force in these contentions which have been urged by the learned counsel for the appellant. Exhibit 28 is the confession statement of A-1, which has been subsequently-retracted by him. From a perusal of Exhibit 28 and from the evidence of P.W. 13 it is clear that the recording of this statement was done in a most unsatisfactory manner. Neither from Exhibit 28 nor from the evidence of P.W. 13, does itappear that A-1 was made aware of the fact that he was in the presence of a Magistrate. It is of the utmost importance that the Magistrate, before proceeding to record the confessional statement, should satisfy himself thoroughly, that the accused person is completely freed from any possible influence of the police. It was very necessary that P.W. 13 should have apprised A-1 before he commenced recording the statement, that A-1 was in the free atmosphere of a Magistrate’s Court. It was very necessary that P.W. 13 should have apprised A-1 before he commenced recording the statement, that A-1 was in the free atmosphere of a Magistrate’s Court. As stated in Madegowda, In re1 the omission on the part of the Magistrate to make known to the accused that he was in the presence of a Magistrate takes away much of the force of the confession statement. The High Court of Orissa in a case reported in Sanatan Bedchat v. The State2 goes to the extent of holding that a confession recorded by a Magistrate without disclosing his identity to the accused cannot be said to comply with the strict formalities required by section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and on that ground alone it should be ruled out as inadmissible. The first accused was produced before P.W. 13 at 8-30 p.m., on 13th September, 1956. From a perusal of Exhibit 28 itself, it is difficulty to say whether it was recorded actually on 13th September, 1956 or whether it was recorded on 14th September, 1956; but, according to the evidence of P.W. 13 a portion of it was recorded on 13th September, 1956 and the remaining portion was recorded by him on 14th September, 1956. P.W. 13 has, no doubt, refuted the suggestion made during the course of his cross-examination to the effect that at 8-30 P.M., on 13th September, 1956, he was in his house and not in his office; but it is strange that P.W. 13 should not have realised the desirability of recording the statement during the usual Court hours; it is not clear as to what urgency there was to commence recording of the statement at 8-30 p.m., on 13th September, 1956, particularly when, according to the version of P.W. 13, the recording was discontinued shortly after the commencement and was further continued on the next day. As pointed out in Mst. Bhagan v. State of Pepsu1 it is a highly undesirable practice to produce accused for recording confessional statements after Court hours. From the evidence of P.W. 13 it appears that he did not question A-1 in order to ascertain for how many days he had been in police custody; it is not clear as to whether he had put my questions to satisfy himself that the accused was free from influence of the police. From the evidence of P.W. 13 it appears that he did not question A-1 in order to ascertain for how many days he had been in police custody; it is not clear as to whether he had put my questions to satisfy himself that the accused was free from influence of the police. In the course of his examination-in-chief, P.W. 13 states that immediately after he received A-1 at 8-30 p.m. on 13th September, 1956, he warned A-1 that he (A-1) was not bound to make a confession and that if he were to make one it might beused against him, in the ensuing trial; but, in the course of his cross-examination it is admitted by him that he has not made a note in writing, of this warning stated to have been administered by him on the night of the 13th. It is further clear from the statement of P.W. 13 during his cross-examination, that on the night of the 13th itself he came to know from A-1 that the offence took place at 5 p.m. on the 7th. The subsequent portions were recorded by him, (according to his evidence) on 14th September, 1956, after A-1 had been given time till 4 p.m. for reflection. It is admitted by him (during his cross-examination) that there is nothing in the statement itself, to show that time was given till 4 p.m. on the 14th. On the other hand, on the top portion of Exhibit 28, it has been noted at 11-30 a.m. on 14th September, 1956, that A-1 “was allowed sufficient time for reflection to revive his memory.” In Exhibit 28, item No. 3 is a printed certificate to the effect that the accused had been asked if he is disposed to make the statement of his free will; towards the end, P.W. 13 has made a routine certificate to the effect he believes that the confession was voluntarily made. Apart from these, Exhibit 28 contains no indications as regards the questions, if any, which P.W. 13 put to A-1 in order to assure himself that the confession statement was being made voluntarily after A-1 had been made to understand the full implications of his making such a statement. Apart from these, Exhibit 28 contains no indications as regards the questions, if any, which P.W. 13 put to A-1 in order to assure himself that the confession statement was being made voluntarily after A-1 had been made to understand the full implications of his making such a statement. The result, therefore, is, that apart from the statement of the Magistrate who recorded the confession, there is no material from which the Court can satisfy itself as to whether the confessional statement was really voluntary in its nature. As pointed out by the learned Chief Justice of the Orissa High Court in Gurubaru Praja v. The King2 it is not enough if the conscience of the Magistrate is satisfied as to the voluntary character of the statement; but, it is also necessary that the Magistrate “leaves such materials on record in proof of compliance with the imperative requirements of the section as would satisfy the Court that sits on judgment in the case that the confessional statement was made voluntarily. In short, the provision of the statute must be complied with both in law and spirit.” The learned Chief Justice has, in that decision, explained as follows: “A Magistrate who is entrusted with the duty of recording confession of an accused coming from police custody or jail custody must appreciate his function in that behalf as one of a judicial officer and that he must apply his judicial mind to the task of ascertaining that the statement he (the accused) is going to make is of his own accord and not on account of any influence on him. That is what is the meaning of voluntary statement within the meaning of the section.” We are in respectful agreement with the above statement of the learned Chief Justice; and in the present case we are not satisfied that P.W. 13 had applied his judicial mind to the task of his ascertaining that the statement which A-1 had offered to make before him was not on account of any influence on A-1. Both the learned Sessions Judge and P.W. 13 appear to have been satisfied from the insistence of A-1 to make the confession (inspite of the Warning administrered by P.W. 13) that the confession was made voluntarily. Both the learned Sessions Judge and P.W. 13 appear to have been satisfied from the insistence of A-1 to make the confession (inspite of the Warning administrered by P.W. 13) that the confession was made voluntarily. A-1 had been produced by the police before the Executive Magistrate, outside the usual Court hours and the insistence to make the confession statement should have been viewed by the Magistrate with suspicion. The Supreme Court, in a case reported in Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab1, where the Magistrate had given a similar explanation and had stated that the accused had insisted, upon making a statement straight away, has observed at page 644 that such insistence to make the confession immediately, should have put the Magistrate on lis guard because, it obviously bore traces of police pressure or inducement. Therefore, the mere insistence on the part of A-1 to make a statement, is not a proper basis for taking the view that his confession was voluntary. In the said decision of the Supreme Court, his Lordship Gajendraghadkar has repeated the warning which he had given earlier in a case reported in Rangappa v. State2 that the“recording of the confession under section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code is a very solemn act and that the Magistrate who records the confession must never allow any element of casualness to creep into the recording of a confession. The compliance with the requirements of section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code should be under taken by the Magistrate not as a mere matter of form, but as a matter of essence Gurubaru Praja v. The King3. The very manner of the recording of this statement, (as can be seen from Exhibit 28 itself), shows that P.W. 13 has proceeded in a very casual way and that he did not fully realise the solemnity of the Act. When considering the question of the truth of the confessional statement, the learned Sessions Judge seems to have got the impression that this statement is very rich in details. The Supreme Court, in a decision reported in Muthuswami v. The State of Madras4, has cautioned against the acceptance of a confession merely on the ground that it contains a wealth of details. Therein, the Supreme Court has stated that it is unsafe to regard mere wealth of uncorroborated detail as a safe-guard of truth. The Supreme Court, in a decision reported in Muthuswami v. The State of Madras4, has cautioned against the acceptance of a confession merely on the ground that it contains a wealth of details. Therein, the Supreme Court has stated that it is unsafe to regard mere wealth of uncorroborated detail as a safe-guard of truth. There are two important features in regard in Exhibit 28 which lay open the confession statement, to the suspicion that it is a tutored one. The first is, his statement in regard to his axe; it is stated in Exhibit 28 that the axe with which the offence was committed has been kept in A-1 house; but, according to the evidence of P.W. 14 with reference to the panchanama Exhibit 30, the axe had already been recovered from the house of A-1, on the morning of 13th September, 1956. If the confession statement subsequently made by A-1 (be it on the evening of 13th September, 1956 or on the next day 14th September, 1956) before P.W. 13 was an untutored and a true statement, the axe should have been referred to as having been already recovered from his house that morning, instead of being referred to as if it had been still remaining in his house. The second feature is that though the first accused is an illiterate person (his left thumb mark has been taken to Exhibit 28), he has been able to mention in his statement not merely the dates but also the exact time or hours at which he was at different places.” The learned Sessions Judge, while realising the importance of the confession as a connecting link between A-1 and the crime, did not, unfortunately, consider all these aspects before making up his mind to rely on Exhibit 28. Instead, the learned Sessions Judge put forward a special plea on behalf of P.W. 13 in regard to his ignorance of the circulars of the Bombay High Court intended for the guidance of the Magistrates recording confession. From a scrutiny of Exhibit 28 and after a careful consideration of the evidence of P.W. 13, we are satisfied that there has not been a proper compliance with the requirements of section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, in regard to the recording of the confession statement and that there are very grave doubts both in regard to its truth and its voluntariness. We are satisfied that it would be most unsafe to place any reliance on this confessional statement, which has been subsequently retracted by A-1. InPara.35 of his judgment, the learned Sessions Judge has stated that the axehead Article No.12 had all the signs of recent burning. The learned counsel for the appellant has rightly contended that there is no material from which the learned Sessions Judge could draw the inference that the axe-head had been subjected to recent burning. The evidence of P.W. 14 (together with the recitals in regard to this axe-head in Exhibit 30) merely shows that the axe-head appeared to have been burnt and smeared with ashes; but, apart from this, there is no evidence to show that the axe-head had been subjected to any recent burning. According to the Chemical Analyser’s report, no blood was detected on this axe-head. It was on 13th September, 1956, that this axe-head was recovered from the house of A-1; but, it is seen from the evidence of the Police Sub-Inspector, P.W. 15, that the first accused had been taken into police custody on the night of 9th September, 1956, itself and thatA-1’s house had been searched on 9th September, 1956, in the presence of A-1 and that no incriminating article was found there and that the police officers did not attach any articles there. Under these circumstances, no importance can be attached to the subsequent recovery of this axe-head which had not been found in A-1’s house when the first search was made soon after the occurrence; and particularly so, when this axe-head does not bear any marks to connect it with the crime, and no mention of any axe-head had been made in Exhibit 7 the complaint of P.W. 1 the brother of Sangappa. As regards the cart, the evidence of P.W. 10 who is a carpenter, is to the effect that on a Saturday (immediately after the alleged date of the offence), certain parts of A-1’s cart had been missing and that he replaced the said missing parts with the parts of some other cart. In the course of his examination by the learned Sessions Judge, A-1 has stated that as the parts were damaged he got them replaced. In the course of his examination by the learned Sessions Judge, A-1 has stated that as the parts were damaged he got them replaced. The prosecution case was further to the effect that certain parts on the inner side of the right wheel of this cart were found to contain dried stains of blood. (Incidentally, it may be mentioned that the learned Sessions Judge, seems to have got the impression that the right wheel of the cart had profuse stains of blood (vide para. 32 of his judgment); but, from the panchanama, Exhibit 31, it is seen that there was merely a sprinkling of stains on the inner side of the right wheel.) This cart appears to have been produced by the Police Patil of Halligudi on 11th September, 1956 and it was attached by the police, as per panchanama, Exhibit 31. The Police Patil of Halligudi who produced this cart has not been examined and it is not known where he found this cart prior to his procuring it before the police. If this cart had been in the house of A-1 at the time when his house was first searched on 9th September, 1956, it is not likely that the police would have failed to inspect or if necessary seize the same on the 9th alone. There is also nothing in the evidence of the carpenter P.W. 10 to show that he had noticed any bloodstains on the innerside of the right wheel of A-1’s cart, at the time when he replaced certain parts of the cart. If there really had been any bloodstains at that time, it is reasonable to suppose that they would have been much more noticeable (since they were comparatively fresh) when P.W. 10 replaced the parts. This circumstance, together with the non-examination of the Halligudi Police Patil who actually produced the cart, gives rise to grave suspicions as regards the circumstances under which there came to be the bloodstains which were discovered on this cart on 11th September, 1956. The possibility of the bloodstains having come into existence at some point of time when this cart was not in the custody of A-1, has not been satisfactorily excluded by the prosecution. It appear; to us that the contention that no adverse inherence should be drawn against A-1 in these circumstances, on the basis of the said bloodstains, is well-founded. The possibility of the bloodstains having come into existence at some point of time when this cart was not in the custody of A-1, has not been satisfactorily excluded by the prosecution. It appear; to us that the contention that no adverse inherence should be drawn against A-1 in these circumstances, on the basis of the said bloodstains, is well-founded. The evidence adduced by the prosecution both in regard to the alleged purchase of Navane’ from Laxmamma, P.W. 3, at Venkatapur, and the identity of the ashes as the ashes of ‘Navane’ is very unsatisfactory. The prosecution story, as regards the purchase of ‘Navane’ by Sangappa, rests on the evidence of Laxmamma P.W. 3. Admittedly P.W. 3 was not a dealer in ‘Navane’. There is no evidence to show that ‘Navane’ was a commodity which was not available at Halligudi; it is not clear as to what necessity there was for Sangappa to have made a purchase of ‘Navane’ from this woman at Venkatapur. The evidence of P.Ws.2, 3 and 6 as regards the visit to Laxmamma and the stay in her house at Venkatapur, is discrepant and unconvincing. According to P.W. 2, Laxmamma was in the house of P.W. 6, Mudakappa and she herself served food to P.W. 2 and Sangappa; but, according to P.W. 3, Mudakappa invited Sangappa to take meals in. his house but Sangappa asked P.W. 6 to send the meals to Laxmamma’s house and then P.W. 6 brought jawar-bread and vegetables and P.W. 2 and Sangappa ate the same. According to. P.W. 6, Mudakappa, he was in Laxmamma’s house at that time and he gave them jawar-bread and vegetables to eat. It does not apper from the evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 6 as if P.W. 3 served the food to them as stated by P.W. 2. The evidence of P.W. 2 does not give the impression that the food served by Laxmamma had been brought by P.W. 6. According to P.W. 3, after taking food Sangappa took rest for about an hour and then purchased 16 seers of ‘Navane’ from her and went away on his bicycle. The evidence of P.W. 2 does not give the impression that the food served by Laxmamma had been brought by P.W. 6. According to P.W. 3, after taking food Sangappa took rest for about an hour and then purchased 16 seers of ‘Navane’ from her and went away on his bicycle. P.W. 6, who does not state anything about the purchase of this ‘Navane’ wants to make it appear that after Sangappa got up from his rest, this witness left the place and went away to his fields; but, from the evidence if P.W. 18 the Investigating Officer, it is clear that P.W. 6 had stated before the police that it was while he was still in P.W. 3’s house, that Sangappa left P.W. 3’s house. If P.W. 6 was in Laxmamma’s house then, he should have witnessed the purchase of ‘Navane’ by Sangappa; but, he does not make any reference to the purchase of ‘Navane’ and wants to make it appear that he left Laxmamma’s house while Sangappa was still there. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that there is satisfactory evidence to show that Sangappa had purchased ‘Navane’ in Laxmamma’s house From the evidence of P.W. 3 it appears that she was formerly residing at Halligudi. It is suggested in the course of her cross-examination that she had never left Halligudi to reside at Venkatapur. Though this is refuted by P.W. 3, there appears to be some force in this suggestion in view of the inconsistencies in her version as regards the length of her stay at Venkatapur prior to the incident. In her evidence, P.W. 3 states that she had shifted from Halligudi to Venkatapur about a year before, whereas from the evidence of the Investigating Officer, P.W. 18, it is seen that she had stated before the police that she had been staying at Venkatapur since about 20 days prior to the incident. Further, the evidence of P.W. 2 as regards his having accompanied Sangappa from Mundargi to Venkatapur, is itself improbable. From what is stated by the learned Sessions Judge towards the end of para. Further, the evidence of P.W. 2 as regards his having accompanied Sangappa from Mundargi to Venkatapur, is itself improbable. From what is stated by the learned Sessions Judge towards the end of para. 23 of his judgment, the learned Sessions Judge seems to have got the impression that Neelappa and Sangappa both travelled together on foot from Hatti to Venkatapur, Sangappa holding the bicycle in hand in order to keep company with Neelappa;but, this does not appear to be a correct impression; because P.W. 2 states in his evidence., that Sangappa left Hatti on his bicycle and went ahead and was waiting for him at Venkatapur, while Neelappa followed on foot. Even when they left Mundargi for Hatti, it appears that Sangappa went ahead on his bicycle and Neelappa followed him on foot. Therefore, it is clear that P.W. 2 was not keeping company with Sangappa and they were not both going together on foot either while going from Mundargi to Hatti or from Hatti to Venkatapur. This kind of travel appears to be somewhat unusual and creates doubt as to whether Neelappa P.W. 2 had at all kept company with Sangappa, at any time after Sangappa left Mundargi. It is not improbable that this version of P.W. 2 as regards his having gone with Sangappa from Mundargi to Hatti and from Hatti to Venkatapur has been put forward only with the object of supporting the prosecution story to the effect that Sangappa had stayed for some time in the house of Laxmamma at Venkatapur](and thereby probabilise the alleged purchase of ‘Navane’.) It is on the strength of the information of P.W. 2 that P.W. 1 made the complaint as per Exhibit 7; but strangely enough, there is no mention of Laxmamma in Exhibit 7; but on the other hand, according to Exhibit 7, P.W. 2 appears to have told P.W. 1 that he left Venkatapur while Sangappa was sleeping in the house of Mudakappa. In view of these discrepancies and improbabilities, we are not satisfied either that Sangappa had been to the house of Laxmamma or that he had purchased ‘Navane’ from her. In view of these discrepancies and improbabilities, we are not satisfied either that Sangappa had been to the house of Laxmamma or that he had purchased ‘Navane’ from her. As regards the pointing out by A-1 of the place from which some ashes were recovered, it is seen that there is really no satisfactory evidence to establish that the ashes were those of burnt ‘Navane’ and were not the ashes of any other kind of corn. After all, as argued by the learned counsel for the appellant, it was perfectly possible that a fire had been put up in that agricultural field for the purpose of burning some rubbish and that in the process some corn might have also been burnt. Therefore, it appears to us that the recovery of the ashes from this field, is not entitled to much importance. From Exhibit 21 which is the inquest panchanama, it is seen that it was not possible for the panchas to state as to whether the burnt body found in the burnt haystack was that of a male or a female. The upper portion of the body had all been burnt and the head had been burnt into charcoal and had become split up into two parts. The evidence of the Medical Officer, P.W. 5, shows that the body had no skull cap, that the face bones were burnt and charred, that the fecial features were also distorted and were not in an identifiable state. It is seen that it is on the strength of P.Ws.1 and 2 having identified the half-burnt bicycle as the bicycle of Sangappa that the inference has been drawn that the dead body is that of Sangappa. From Exhibit 22 the panchanama of the scene of offence, it is seen that the tyres, tubes and the seat of the cycle had all been burnt and the cycle was smeared with ashes. P.W. 1 states that bis brother’s bicycle was a second hand one and he does not know from whom Sangappa had purchased it. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 does not disclose the existence of any distinguishing mark by which this burnt bicycle could have been satisfactorily identified as the bicycle of Sangappa. We are not satisfied that this burnt bicycle was in an identifiable state. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 does not disclose the existence of any distinguishing mark by which this burnt bicycle could have been satisfactorily identified as the bicycle of Sangappa. We are not satisfied that this burnt bicycle was in an identifiable state. We do not consider it safe, on the strength of the prosecution evidence in regard to the identity of this burnt bicycle to draw an inference that the burnt unidentifiable corpse found in the hay-stack must necessarily have been that of Sangappa. Under these circumstances, it appears to us, that there is much force in the contention on behalf of the appellant that it has not been satisfactorily established that the burnt corpse is that of Sangappa. It is seen from the evidence of P.W. 9 that Sangappa was of bad character and had been setting fire to hay-stacks. Even if it were to be assumed, for purpose of argument, that the burnt corpse found in the hay-stack was that of Sangappa, the possibility of his having met with his end in a manner different from that sought to be made out by the prosecution, cannot be excluded. There appears to have been some ill-will between A-1 and his father on the one side, and Sangappa and P.W. 11 on the other; P.W. 2 appears to have been a surety for Sangappa and P.W. 11. The nonappearance of Sangappa after the Chapter Proceedings were adjourned at Mundargi may have given rise to some suspicion against A-1. It is contended on behalf of the appellant, that it is not improbable that this circumstance was taken advantage of by those who were not well-disposed towards A-1, to implicate him. The burning of the hay-stack with the body in it, may have been to cause the disappearance of the evidence of a foul murder; but, there is no evidence to establish that it was A-1 that had set fire to the hay-stack. The disappearance of Sangappa and the ill-will between him and A-1, may even give rise to suspicion against A-1; but, as indicated by the Supreme Court in Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab1, it is not enough to say that the prosecution story may be true. The disappearance of Sangappa and the ill-will between him and A-1, may even give rise to suspicion against A-1; but, as indicated by the Supreme Court in Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab1, it is not enough to say that the prosecution story may be true. As observed by their Lordships, “between ‘may be true’ and ‘must be true’ there is inevitably a long distance to travel and the whole of this distance must be covered by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence.” The mere possibility of the half burnt corpse being that of Sangappa and there being some grounds for suspicion against the appellant, are not by themselves sufficient to sustain a conviction, particularly when it has been found that no reliance could be placed, in this case, on the retracted confession. On a careful consideration of the entire evidence and all the aspects of the case we are satisfied that this appeal should be allowed. Therefore, we allow this appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Sessions Judge. It is ordered that the appellant be set at liberty forthwith. S.V.S. ----- Appeal allowed; Conviction set aside.