Judgment A.K.Prasad, J. 1. This appeal by the sole appellant (Mangra Uraon alias Mangru) is directed against the judgment and order, dated 7-12-1985 in ST No. 382 of 1984 passed by Shri Shrtdeo Mishra, the then Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, whereby he has been convicted under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life thereunder. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, as made out in the First Information Report, is as under: In the night on 25th August, 1984, which was a Saturday, Sukra Uraon, the informant, (PW2), Gobardhan Uraon, (PW3), Johan Kujur, Mangru Uraon, (the appellant) and Sani Uraon, (the deceased) assembled at the house of Gobardhan Uraon, (PW3) and the appellant had brought wine. They were enjoying the drinks. In course of drink, the appellant, (Mangru Uraon) started singing a song in Uraon language. His father, Sani Uraon, protested and commanded him not to sing such a song. This led to altercation between them. The appellant, thereafter, challenged his father to sing a song, if he had a wit. Thereafter, Sani Uraon, (the deceased) sang an Uraon song. Then, there was another round of altercation between the two. Around 11.00 p.m. Sani Uraon, the deceased, asked his son/appellant Mangru Uraon to return home, as the drink and dinner was over, whereafter they together left for home. The informant Birsa Uraon, (PW2), Gobardhan Uraon, (PW5) and Johan Kujur stayed there and took tobacco. When they were about to disperse, about half an hour after, the appellant had departed, the appellant again came to the house of Gobardhan Uraon holding a blood-stained knife in his hand and there were blood-stains on his clothes and he confessed before them that-he had killed his father with knife in the tanr to the west of the house of Gobardhan Uraon. He requested not to disclose it to anyone and thereafter, he went away. The informant and the witnesses became nervous on the disclosure made by the appellant. They went to village Jogi, met Sahdeo Bhagat, the mukhiya and narrated the incident to him. Thereafter, they returned to their village Lavagain within the Police Station Kuru, district Lohardaga, accompanied by Sahdeo Bhagat, and went to the tanr which is west to the house of Gobardhan Uraon, and found the dead body of Sani Uraon, with knife wounds. They went to village Jogi, met Sahdeo Bhagat, the mukhiya and narrated the incident to him. Thereafter, they returned to their village Lavagain within the Police Station Kuru, district Lohardaga, accompanied by Sahdeo Bhagat, and went to the tanr which is west to the house of Gobardhan Uraon, and found the dead body of Sani Uraon, with knife wounds. On the next day at 6 a.m., the informant went to Lohardaga police station in the company of Birsa Uraon, (PW2), Gobardhan Uraon, (PW3), Johan Kujur; Sahdeo Bhagat and lodged the First Information Report, (Exhibit 2) about the incident. The explanation for the delay in lodging the First Information Report is that due to late night and rains, the First Information Report could not be lodged earlier. The distance between the PO village (Lavagain) and Kuru police station is about 8 kms. 3. On the basis of the First Information Report, (Exhibit 2), the present case came to be instituted. The Police Officer, (PW6) commenced investigation, visited the spot on 27-8-1984, held inquest over the dead body of Sani Uraon, and sent it for post-mortem examination. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was laid in Court against the appellant. 4. The case was ultimately committed to the Court of Sessions by Sri D.O. Guru, Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga. 5. The main defence is of innocence and false implication. 6. At the trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses in support of its case. Out of them, PW4, (Johan Kujur) is a tendered witness, whereas PW5, (Chamni Urain), the widow of the deceased, is a hostile witness. The other PWs are: Dr. AA Faruqui, (PW1), who held post-mortem examination on the dead body of Sani Uraon, PW2 (Sukra Uraon), PW3, (Gouri Shankar Singh); who conducted part investigation of the case. The defence, on the other hand, examined no witness. 7. The other PWs are: Dr. AA Faruqui, (PW1), who held post-mortem examination on the dead body of Sani Uraon, PW2 (Sukra Uraon), PW3, (Gouri Shankar Singh); who conducted part investigation of the case. The defence, on the other hand, examined no witness. 7. On consideration of the materials and evidence on record, the trial Court, relying mainly on the evidence of PWs 2 and 3, the circumstantial evidence that the deceased was last seen in the company of the appellant and there was altercation between them over singing of song, they had left together and after half an hour, the appellant had appeared before them with a bloodstained knife and his clothes too had blood-stains and the extrajudicial confession made by him before them that he had killed the deceased, found the appellant guilty of the charge under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code for committing the murder of his father and convicted him thereunder, as stated above. 8. Mr. Ramkishore Prasad, learned Counsel for the appellant, has contended that the chain of circumstantial evidence put forth by the prosecution. is not complete to establish the guilt of the appellant; that the extrajudicial confession attributed to the appellant in absence of corroboration by the circumstances of the case cannot be the basis of conviction; that no knife, the weapon of offence, is alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the appellant; that the fact that the appellant had made extra-judicial confession before PWs 2 and 3 was not specifically put to the appellant in his examination under Sec. 313. Cr. P.C. and it cannot be used against him to substantiate the charge and in the circumstances of the case the appellant is at least entitled to the benefit of doubt. Mr. Laljee Sahay, learned APP for the respondent-State on the other hand has supported the impugned judgment. 9. The point which falls for consideration is whether the prosecution has been able to bring home the charge under Sec. 302, IPC to the appellant beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt. 10. At the out-set, it may be stated that there is no direct evidence on the murder of the deceased. The case rests on circumstantial evidence and the extrajudicial confession alleged to have been made by the appellant. 11. The factum of murder of the deceased is not disputed. 10. At the out-set, it may be stated that there is no direct evidence on the murder of the deceased. The case rests on circumstantial evidence and the extrajudicial confession alleged to have been made by the appellant. 11. The factum of murder of the deceased is not disputed. It is established beyond doubt by the medical evidence on record that the deceased met with homicidal death. Dr. A.A. Faruqui. (PW1) has testified to the effect that on 27-8-1984 at 11.30 a.m., he held post-mortem examination on the dead body of Sani Uraon and he had found in all four ante mortem stab wounds, which are possible by knife, detailed in his evidence, on the person of the deceased. According to him the wounds were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death. He has further stated that there was alcoholic smell in the watery material of the stomach. He has opined that the time elapsed since death was within three days of the post-mortem examination. This corroborates the prosecution case about the murder of the deceased in the night of 25th August. 1984. Exhibit I is the post-mortem examination report in his pen. 12. The crucial point, which now arises for consideration is whether the appellant is the author of the crime. The cardinal principle is that fouler the crime, stricter is the burden of proof on the prosecution to establish the charge. It is well settled that in a case of conviction on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances relied on must be cogently and firmly established, the circumstances should be linked up with one another to form a complete chain and the circumstances should be of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused. Bearing this principle in mind, one may now proceed to discuss the evidence led by the prosecution. 13. PW2, (Sukra Uraon), the informant, has stated in his chief examination that on the fateful night, around 10 p.m. he was sitting in the house of Karu enjoying drinks and eatables in the company of Johan Kujur. (PW4). Gobardhan Uraon, (PW3). Juber, (not examined), the appellant, (Mangru Uraon) and Sani Uraon (the deceased); that the appellant sang a Uraon song, but the deceased forbade him not to sing such a song and there was exchange of hot words between them; that the deceased had asked to go for dinner. (PW4). Gobardhan Uraon, (PW3). Juber, (not examined), the appellant, (Mangru Uraon) and Sani Uraon (the deceased); that the appellant sang a Uraon song, but the deceased forbade him not to sing such a song and there was exchange of hot words between them; that the deceased had asked to go for dinner. Whereafter, the appellant and the deceased left the place, while the informant and the other associates sat there, and after about half an hour, the appellant returned holding a blood stained knife and told them that he had cut his father, (the deceased) with the knife and his clothes had also bloodstains and thereafter, the appellant went away. PW1 has further stated in chief examination that the dead body of the deceased lying in the tanr to the west of the house of Karu; that the informant and others went to the mukhiya and narrated the incident to him; the mukhiya visited the place and saw the dead body of the deceased. He has further stated that on the next morning, he lodged the FIR with the Police Station. P.W. 3, (Gobardhan Uraon) has stated in his chief-examination that on the day of occurrence at about 10.00 p.m., he, the informant, Johan Kujur, the appellant and the deceased were sitting together and drinking wine; that the appellant began to sing a song to which his father, (the deceased) protested, which led to an altercation between them and the deceased left the place for meal and afterwards, the appellants went away, but he (this witness) and his other associates remained there and after about half an hour, he, (the appellant) returned with a knife in his hand and disclosed that he had killed his father and there was blood-stains on the knife and the clothes, and forbade them not to raise hue and cry and thereafter, he (this witness) in the company of the informant and Birsa Uraon went to the mukhiya, who came along with them and saw the dead body and on the next morning the First Information Report was lodged with the Police Station. He has clarified in cross-examination that the deceased on his own volition had left for his home. 14. We may now critically analyse and evaluate the evidence of PWs 2 and 3. He has clarified in cross-examination that the deceased on his own volition had left for his home. 14. We may now critically analyse and evaluate the evidence of PWs 2 and 3. It has been noticed above that the PW 1 has stated that all had assembled at the house of Karu for drinks. But Karu has not been examined in the case. Both the PWs have stated that there was altercation between the appellant and the deceased over singing of song on the occasion. Perhaps, this intends to show that the appellant had motive for the murder of the deceased. Even if it is ex facie believed that an altercation had taken place over singing of song, it is highly improbable that for such trivial matter, the appellant would have decided to kill his father. PW2 has stated that the deceased and the appellant had left together for home for meal. P.W. 3, on the other hand, has stated that the appellant had left the place on his own volition sometime after the deceased, i.e. they did not go together. This renders the prosecution case doubtful that the deceased was last seen in the company of the appellant alone. The dead body of Sani Uraon was found in the tanr. 25 metres off the house of PW3 in the east. The house of the deceased is 50 metres from the place of occurrence towards east-north (vide paragraph 2 of the deposition of PW6). The house of PW 3 faces east and the path leading to the house of PW3 arid the tanr, where the dead body was found lying lies between their houses (vide paragraph of the deposition of PW2). PW1, (Dr. A.A. Faruqui) has stated in his cross-examination that the victim might have survived for about few hours after sustaining the wounds. The assault on the deceased took place at a short distance of barely 25 metres from the place of the assemblage of the informant and the other PWs. It is expected that the deceased must have raised alarm while resisting the attack and in such a situation their attention would have been attracted and they would have hastened to the spot at the time of the alleged occurrence. But, this did not happen. It may be that the deceased was done to death by someone at some unascertained time, while returning home. 15. But, this did not happen. It may be that the deceased was done to death by someone at some unascertained time, while returning home. 15. It is significant to note that the circumstance that there was an altercation between the appellant and the deceased over singing of song or that the deceased was last seen in the company of the appellant was not put to the appellant in his examination under Sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appellant was not afforded an opportunity to submit explanation with regard to it. Hence, it is to be presumed that prejudice was caused to the defence when such circumstances were not put to the appellant in his examination under Sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This part of the evidence for that reason has to be excluded from consideration (Ref.: Balwant Kunwar V/s. Union Territory of Chandigarh). At any rate, the circumstances relied on by the prosecution do not form a complete chain to lead to Irresistible conclusion that the deceased was done to death by the appellant. 16. One may now turn to the evidence regarding the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant before the PWs 2 and 3. We may recapitulate here that PWs 2 and 3 have stated that after half an hour, the appellant appeared with blood-stained knife and blood on his clothes and had disclosed that he had killed his father and went away. The learned APP has urged that there is no material on record to suggest that they have any animosity with the appellant and so their evidence that the appellant had made extra-judicial confession deserves to be accepted. A suggestion was given: by the defence to PWs 2 and 3 that PW3 had assaulted and killed the deceased because he had not performed puja at the time of death of Maru, father of PW3, and that the appellant has been falsely implicated. It is true that the defence suggestion has been denied by them. Be that as it may, such a defence was taken although there is no positive evidence to substantiate the suggestion denied by the PWs 2 and 3. It has come in the evidence of PW2 that PW3 had arranged for the drinks on the fateful night. It has further come in the cross-examination of PW2 that father of Gobardhan. Be that as it may, such a defence was taken although there is no positive evidence to substantiate the suggestion denied by the PWs 2 and 3. It has come in the evidence of PW2 that PW3 had arranged for the drinks on the fateful night. It has further come in the cross-examination of PW2 that father of Gobardhan. (PW3) pad died 15-20 days prior to the occurrence and the deceased Sani Uraon was the pahan (village priest), who worshipped Ghost and people and cattles die when no worship is done. PW3 has also admitted that his father is dead. It does not stand to reason, why the appellant would have chosen to visit the informant and the witnesses and confide in them and make extra-Judicial confession admitting his guilt. No bloodstained knife, the weapon of the offence, was seized by the PWs or recovered by the Police Officer. The impulse of the PWs in the circumstance would have been to apprehend the appellant seize the knife in his possession and to produce him before the Police Officer or the mukhiya. Sahdeo Bhagat (the mukhiya ) to whom PWs 2 and 3 alleged to have narrated the incident op the fateful night by going to his village Jogi has not been examined to corroborate the fact. PW5, (Chamni Drain), widow of the deceased, has stated that the next day she could know that the deceased husband had been knifed to death. PW2 has admitted that he never informed the family members of the deceased about the occurrence, either before going to the Police Station or on return therefrom. It has come in evidence that the house of the deceased is in the same village and at a short distance from the place where the PWs had assembled for drinks. The natural conduct of the PWs 2 and 3 of their associates would have been to break the news of the murder of the deceased to his widow and other family members. 17. The circumstances put forth above render it highly improbable that the appellant had made the extra-judicial confession before the PWs 2 and 3. The materials on record suggest that probably PWs 2 and 3 had some remote bias against the deceased. In the circumstances, reliance cannot be placed on the alleged extra-judicial confession attributed to the appellant. 17. The circumstances put forth above render it highly improbable that the appellant had made the extra-judicial confession before the PWs 2 and 3. The materials on record suggest that probably PWs 2 and 3 had some remote bias against the deceased. In the circumstances, reliance cannot be placed on the alleged extra-judicial confession attributed to the appellant. That apart, a vague question was put to the accused in his examination under Sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that he had disclosed about the murder of the deceased and he was not specifically questioned that he made extrajudicial confession before the PWs. admitting his guilt or that he wielded a blood stained knife at that time. Thus, there has been material irregularity in his examination under Sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 18. PW6, (Gouri Shankar Singh), the Police Officer, has stated that he seized the blood-stained clothes on the person of the appellant vide Exhibit 4. It is suffice to say that there is no material on the record to suggest that the seized clothes were sent for chemical examination or that there is a report of the serologist that the stains on the seized clothes were of the blood group of the deceased. That apart, the seized clothes have not been produced as material exhibit in this case. 19. In view of the discussions made above, I am of the considered view that there may be some suspicion against the appellant. But, the suspicion, however, strong cannot be take place of proof. 20. In the result, the appellant is given benefit of doubt and is acquitted of the charge under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant by the Court below is set aside. The appellant, who is on bail, is discharged from the liability of his bail bond.