Honble PALSHIKAR, J.– Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Churu in sessions case No. 142/93, the accused appellants named above have preferred these appeals on the ground mentioned in the memo of appeals. The facts of these appeals are identical and therefore, both the appeals can conveniently be disposed of by this common judgment. (2). Facts giving rise to the appeals stated briefly are that the first information report was lodged in Police Station, Bhaleri by one Mool Chand S/o Dooda Ram that in the night, his brother Radhey Shyam was killed by his brother Pema Ram. Thereafter, investigation was taken up, during the investigation, it was revealed that the informant Mool Chand was involved in commission of the offence and therefore, both the persons were prosecuted under Sec. 302 & 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution has examined as many as 18 witnesses in support of its case that the murder was committed by the accused persons. On appreciation of the evidence on record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Churu came to the conclusion that the accused are guilty and he therefore, convicted the accused to suffer life imprisonment as aforesaid. (3). With the assistance of the learned counsel for the accused-appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor, we have reappreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record and reconsidered the entire evidence in light of the submissions made before us by the learned counsel. (4). PW.1 Puran Daas is a panch witness who was present when the dead body was recovered by the police. He states that when the dead body was recovered, accused Mool Chand was with the police. He has proved the documents, executed in his presence. (5) PW.2 Gauri Shanker was declared hostile by the prosecution. PW 3 Rajli wife of Dooda Ram is the mother of the accused persons. She has deposed that she had nurtured the deceased Radhey Shyam and looked after him till he attends adulthood. She has then said that for last three years, the deceased did not come to the house of the witness, he was given to heavy alcohol consumption she was declared hostile by the prosecution. (6). PW.4 Manohar, the entire testimony of this witness based on hearsay. He heard that Radhey Shyam was killed and his dead body was thrown in ``Johad. (6). PW.4 Manohar, the entire testimony of this witness based on hearsay. He heard that Radhey Shyam was killed and his dead body was thrown in ``Johad. The evidence of this witness is therefore, inconsequential. PW.5 Onkar has also been declared hostile. PW. 6 Pokar Ram is declared hostile. (7). PW. 7 Magha Ram is a chance witness who and PW. 8 Devilal were going towards their village and were passing by the ``Johad when they heard a noise of something being thrown in the water. According to the witnesses, the accused told them that the accused were drowning buffalo from the field in the ``Johad. He identifies the accused persons as those to whom he saw near the ``Johad. He then states that later on, he came to know that some people have killed the man and thrown in the ``Johad. However, inspite of knowledge of identity of the persons, he did not disclose anything to anybody for next three days. In cross-examination, this witness has stated that he disclosed it only to Manohar Lal not to any one else. Manohar Lal PW.4 has been declared hostile. There is therefore, a corroboration to the statement of this witness that he disclosed it to Manohar Lal. It is strange be-haviour on, the part of any person that he is a witness to a commission and chooses to keep quite about it for quit some time. In the cross-examination, he has stated that he knows the accused by face and does not know them by name. (8). PW. 8 Devi Lal who accompanied PW.7 and has deposed in similar vein. He also appears to be a chance witness. He has stated that he was loitering around the bus stand at 2.30 in the night. He has stated that on being asked, the accused said that they have thrown a buffalo in the water. The cross-examination of this witness reveals that he had no occasion to hear the accused persons from a distance. He has agreed that he does not know them by name. He has thus claimed the identity of the accused at 2.30 in the night by recognizing their voice only. (9). PW.9 Bhanwar Singh has witnessed to the extra-judicial confession allegedly made by the accused who has deposed that he was present when the accused said to Savitri that he and Pema Ram have killed Radhey Shyam. He has thus claimed the identity of the accused at 2.30 in the night by recognizing their voice only. (9). PW.9 Bhanwar Singh has witnessed to the extra-judicial confession allegedly made by the accused who has deposed that he was present when the accused said to Savitri that he and Pema Ram have killed Radhey Shyam. This witness has also not disclosed the making of the statement to any other witness or any other person. PW 10 Savitri, whose deposition is worth nothing: ^^ewypUn dks iwNk fd ;g ppkZ gS fd jk/ks;ke dk dRy gks x;k ftlesa vki dk uke yksx ysrs gS] ;g ckr lPph gS D;k\ rc mlus dgk fd tks gks xbZ lks rks gks xbZ] rqeus lquh gS] vkxs er dgukA** Then she repeats: ^^tks ppkZ lquh gS og esjs gkFk ls gks xbZ gS] vkxs fdlh ls er dgukA** (10). In cross-examination, she has stated that she did not disclose anything to any one else except the Police. It is an unnatural conduct on the part of the person. (11). PW.11 Mana Ram is declared hostile. PW.12 Dr. Mahesh Chandra Joshi who proves homicidal death of Radhey Shyam by strangulation. PW.14 is the Malkhana Incharge who handed over the sealed packets in sealed condition to PW. 13 for transmission to F.S.L., Jaipur. His deposition to this effect is corroborated by the deposition of PW.13 who states that he delivered the packets in sealed condi-tion to F.S.L., Jaipur. (12). PW.15 Jagna Ram has deposed that accused Mool Chand told him that Radhey Shyam was killed by Pema Ram and on being asked by the witness as to the rumor that he and Pema Ram killed the deceased, he said that `yet they have done so. He claimed to be forgiven. This witness has also stated that he discloses this fact to Manohar who has been declared hostile. It will thus be seen that all these witnesses who have not turned hostile, have chosen to disclose their knowledge about involvement of the accused in commission of the crime only to PW.4 Manohar Lal who has turned hostile. There is therefore, no corroboration to their statement that they heard such thing and disclosed it to Manohar Lal. It is against the human conduct that a person who hears of such extra-judicial confession regarding commission of murder will not disclose it immediately to some other responsible persons. There is therefore, no corroboration to their statement that they heard such thing and disclosed it to Manohar Lal. It is against the human conduct that a person who hears of such extra-judicial confession regarding commission of murder will not disclose it immediately to some other responsible persons. (13).PW.16 Jora Ram is examined by the prosecution to say that he talked with Maga Ram and another at 10.00 in the night and they left for their village probably to seek corroboration to those who are chance witnesses who heard noise of buffalo being thrown in the water by the accused at 2.30 in the night. PW.17 Praveen Kumar is the Station House Officer who investigated the crime in part, the further investigation being carried on by PW.18 Tara Chand. It is on appreciation of this evidence that the learned Judge has come to the conclusion of guilt and has convic-ted the accused persons as aforesaid. (14). Even if the entire prosecution evidence is accepted, it is difficult to sustain the order of conviction for the reasons that the alleged extra-judicial confession is not proved properly. There is no proper corroboration to the testimony of witness who speaks of the extra-judicial confession. The report in the po-lice was lodged by Mool Chand who himself, later on accused. There is no disclosure by Mool Chand in the first information report regarding his involvements in the crime, there is no eye-witness, there is no witness to the accused persons throwing the body in the ``Johad. The chance witnesses are not believed and the prosecution evidence is such as it creates reasonable doubt in the mind of a man that the offence should have been committed by the accused, they deserve benefit of doubt. We are unable to affirm the judgment of conviction as the prosecution evidence is insufficient to do so. In the result, the appeal succeeds and allowed. The accused are acquitted of the offence with which they are charged. They are already on bail, their bail bonds be cancelled.