JUDGMENT (Mishra, J.) 1. The appellant-accused has filed the present appeal being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence under section 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code for murder of his wife namely Munni Bai in between 13th June, 1989. It is not in dispute that the accused-appellant had turned ascetic prior to 5 to 6 years of the incident and used to reside at Chitrakoot and Ayodhya, etc. His wife Munnibai used to reside with her parents. Few months prior to the date of incident her father had left Munnibai with the father and brother of the accused-appellant and she was residing at village Kevatra. According to the prosecution case, the accused-appellant came to the village about 1 and 1/2 months prior to the incident and started living with his wife at village Kevatra. From 13.6.89 to 16.6.89 for 3-4 days the accused went-out from village Kevatra and came back on 16.6.89. It was noticed that the accused-appellant's wife Munnibai was missing and a human skeleton was found in a nullah. known as Magarvilla near village Kevatra. Nearby the human body one lady sari, bangles, hair and ear rings were found. The forensic science expert Dr. B.S. Badkul examined as PW-6 performed the post mortem on 20th of June, 1989 opined that the decomposed body was of that a woman who must have been in between 25 and 30 years of age, there were fractures caused by hard and blunt object over the parietal jaw region and the death took place in between 7 to 15 days of the examination of the body. According to the prosecution case, the First Information Report was lodged by Sunderlal (PW 1) at 7.10 a.m. on 17th of June, 1989 which was recorded by Sub Inspector K.K. Paharia (PW-5). From Dehati Nalishi Ex P-1 wherein it was mentioned by Suhderlal that accused appellant was his younger brother and was residing separately from the complainant prior to 7 days accused-appellant along-with his wife and children had gone to his in law's house to village chukahta and came back alongwith his wife next day and left the children at in-law's house. On Tuesday the accused went out along-with his wife took lathi and sickle (hansia) with him but did not return back. The complainant thought that the accused appellant may have gone to his in law's place. On Tuesday the accused went out along-with his wife took lathi and sickle (hansia) with him but did not return back. The complainant thought that the accused appellant may have gone to his in law's place. Yet another person of the village namely Chhota Kevat was married to the elder sister-in-law of the accused. Chota came back on 16th of June, 1989 at 11. 00 a.m. and informed the complainant that the accused Jugla and his wife Munnibai did not reach village Chukahta. On the same day at about 12.00 a.m. Jugla came back to the house then an inquiry was made by Harchatva (PW 3) s/o Chota Kevat but the accused did not disclose the whereabouts of his wife. Several persons of the village came but accused ran away and was caught at Mahatpurva, even then he did not disclose the whereabouts of Munnibai i.e. his wife. Thereafter complainant and Chota Kevat went to villago Kevetra and Hatoha and called the villagers. Ram Asre (PW 2) was also called, who rebuked the accused and asked the whereabouts of Munnibai then accused asked him to take him to Police Station Chandla and he wouid disclose at the Police Station. Ram Asre and others had caught his hand and Ram Asre again rebuked and asked about his wife then accused-appellant disclosed that he had killed his wife by Baka and lathi and thrown her in Magervilla Nullah. The accused was caught hold taken to Magarvilla Nullah, then a human body was found and green eplour sari was found and bangles were also found near the dead body. It was also the prosecution case that Munnibai had administered poison prior to 4 years to the accused at her parental house due to that incident the accused had turned ascetic and was not residing with his wife and due to this enmity he has killed Munnibai - 2. On the basis of the information furnished by Sunderlal (PW 1) an offence was registered at 0/89 under section 302 and 201 of the IPC, thereafter at PS Chandia at Crime No. 28/89 the offence was registered on the basis of said Dehati Nalish. Sub Inspector K.K. Paharia seized the dead body, lathi. green colour sari, bangles, hair, etc. Learned Magistrate committed the case on 22.8.1989 to the Court of Sessions for trial. 3. Sub Inspector K.K. Paharia seized the dead body, lathi. green colour sari, bangles, hair, etc. Learned Magistrate committed the case on 22.8.1989 to the Court of Sessions for trial. 3. In all the prosecution has examined six witnesses Sunderlal (PW 1) who is brother of the accused-appellant, Ram Asre (PW 2) to whom the extra judicial confession is said to have been made, Harchatva (PW-3) s/o Chota Kevat, whose wife was sister of the deceased Munnibai, Kedar Prasad Nigam (PW 4) Patwari who prepared the spot map (Ex P-2) K.K. Paharia (PW 5) Sub Inspector of PS Chandla and Dr. B.S. Badkul (PW-6) who performed the autopsy. The accused had abjured the guilt and stated under section 313 Cr. P.C. that he has been falsely implicated, poison was not administered by his wife to him. They were having no ill-will, he had turned ascetic on his own. He has retracted the extra judicial confession made to the villagers and stated that he made it to the Police that he was informed by the villagers that dead body of his wife was lying at Magervilla Nullah and you have killed her. He could not identify the sari of the deceased. He further stated in the defence that he has not killed his wife, he had gone to Chitrakut and had left his wife' at the residence and when he came back after three days, he did not find his wife in the house. The villagers enquired where he had gone then he replied that he had come back from Chitrakut ami was going to Ayodhya. They asked the whereabouts of his wife he told that he was not aware. Ram Asre came and all of theni caught hold of him, took to the place where one human skeleton was lying and they told that you have killed your wife, speak correctly otherwise you will be killed He stated that he has not killed his wife and if he had to be killed then he would say whatever the villagers want but he should be spared. Then he was taken to the Police check-post and was asked to speak to police that it was he \\ho has murdered his wife. Due to this fear of death he stated that he has killed his wife. 4. Then he was taken to the Police check-post and was asked to speak to police that it was he \\ho has murdered his wife. Due to this fear of death he stated that he has killed his wife. 4. Learned trial Court relying upon the extra judicial confession and deposition of Sundarlal Ram Asre, PW-l and PW 2 respectively, convicted the accused for an offence under section 302 and 201 IPC and has sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. It is now aggrieved by the same, present appeal has been filed from jail by the accused himself. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant Shri Akshay Dharmadhikari who was appointed as amicus curiae. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that the accused has been wrongly convicted, the circumstantial evidence is highly unchained and the extra judicial confession has been wrongly relied upon. It is not proved that he has made such confession voluntarily due to his own will without any fear or pressure and there is discrepancy in the version of the said witnesses as to the confession made by the accused/appellant. The accused/appellant was put to fear of his life and was manhandled, hence in order to save himself from being killed he had made certain statements: the exact words are not proved and the oral version of the extra judicial confession does not Talley with the medical evidence: It has also been submitted that it is not proved that the dead body was that of the deceased Munnibai. The evidence as to identification of skeleton is completely lacking, the articles have also not been identified in the Court, thus the conviction of the accused is wholly un-warranted and is bad in law. 6. The case of die prosecution is that the accused appellant has rightly been convicted on the basis of chain of circumstances indicating his implication in the offence in question on-the basis of evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses. The prosecution has been successful to bring home the guilt. Hence the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 7. In the instant case there is no eye-witness and the conviction rests upon the confession and circumstantial evidence. The prosecution has been successful to bring home the guilt. Hence the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 7. In the instant case there is no eye-witness and the conviction rests upon the confession and circumstantial evidence. Sundarlal (PW 1) who happens to be brother of the accused/appellant has stated that he had last seen the accused-appellant and Munnibai at their home when he went to Karigar he had left them at their house at village Kevatra. He has further deposed that he himself went-out on Tuesday and came back on Thursday and found that Jugla and Munni were not at the house and Chota came back from the accused's in-laws house, and he also informed that Jugla and Munni were not there. Jugla came back on Friday to village Kevatra. He inquired the whereabouts of Munnibai to Jugla but he did not disclose anything, thereafter villagers were called on being interrogated by them, the accused has disclosed that Munnibai has been murdered and thrown in Magervilla Nullah. On this information received from Jugla he was taken to Police check post Hinota, they told that the report has to be lodged at P.S. Chandla and clerk of Hinota took the villagers and the accused to the place where the dead body was lying. One bone structure was found at nullah, some broken bangles, a Dhoti and hair were also recovered. Allegedly they belonged to Munnibai. Thereafter, said Munshi of PS Hinota asked to lodge the report at Police station Chandla then he had lodged the report (Ex P-l). This witness has further stated that before 4-5 years he was informed by the accused and the villagers that Munni had administered poison to him. In the cross-examination the witness has deposed that the accused did not want to live with Munni and he used to go-out whenever he came to the village he used to cook his own food. However, there were no immediate quarrels between Munnibai and the accused/appellant. The villagers had caught hold of the hands of the accused and threatened him while enquiring the whereabouts of Munnibai. He admitted that the accused was rebuked then he made extra judicial confession. The witness has further deposed that he did not go to Magervilla Nullah on the same day but on the next day he had gone to Magervilla Nullah alongwith Pradhanjee. He admitted that the accused was rebuked then he made extra judicial confession. The witness has further deposed that he did not go to Magervilla Nullah on the same day but on the next day he had gone to Magervilla Nullah alongwith Pradhanjee. Jugla did not inform in his presence that his wife bones were lying, it was only a skeleton, there was no flesh and he could not identify from the skeleton that it belonged to Munnibai. Further from the hair only a doubt was raised from the bangles and dhoti also he had doubt that these may have been of Munnibai. It is thus clear from the deposition of the said witness that he had left the deceased and the accused at the house when he had gone out from the village. He had not seen the accused going with the deceased Munnibai for cutting grass himself. This witness has further admitted that villagers had caught hold of the hands of the accused and thereafter whereabouts of Munnibai were asked and the accused was also taken to the Police check post. The witness was not able to identify the skeleton, to be of Munnibai, only a doubt was raised from the bangles and Dhoti which were lying separately at a distance. 8. Another witness PW-2 Ram Asre deposed that he is resident of village Hatoha and is an agriculturist, he has deposed that Sundarlal and Chhota came to him and told him that Jugla had come back alone and whereabouts of his wife were not known. On this, the said witness accompanied Sunderlal and chhota Kevat and went to Kevatnpura, on the way near Mahua tree he found Jugla encircled by 2 to 4 persons. The witnesses asked those persons not to harass the accused and told that the accused would disclose the truth as to the whereabouts of his wife, the accused told that he had left his wife at the village and it was not known to him where she was. The accused was re-asked to disclose the truth, thereafter the accused stated that he has Murdered his wife and thrown the body in Magervilla nullah. Thereafter the accused was taken by these persons to check post of PS Hinota. The Police was informed by the accused that he has killed his wife and had thrown the dead body in Magervilla nullah. Thereafter the accused was taken by these persons to check post of PS Hinota. The Police was informed by the accused that he has killed his wife and had thrown the dead body in Magervilla nullah. Thereafter alongwith police said witnesses with Jugla accused went to Magervilla nullah, a skeleton was recovered and portion of jaw, bangles and Sari was found nearby the skeleton. This witness has further deposed that the accused used to say that his wife had administered the poison to him due to which he turned ascetic. Thereafter, Munnibai was living with her parents and after about five years she came back to in-law's place and accused also came back and for 1 and 1/2 months they lived together. This witness has further deposed that no Hansia was seized in his presence, the mention in the seizure memo Ex P/7 was not correct. The witness was not in a position to say that the skeleton was of whom. This witness has only stared with respect to the second part of the evidence led as to the extra judicial confession and the recovery of the skeleton and lady sari from the open area near shrub and was not able to identify himself the skeleton or articles and had not seen Munnibai at any earlier point of time. 9. Harchatva (PW 3) is son of the sister of the deceased Munnibai, the deceased was his maternal aunt (Mausi). He stated that he had not seen Munnibai and Jugla going together. The witness has deposed in his examination-in-chief, that for 3-4 days Baba (accused) had gone out and when he came back, Munnibai was not with him. On inquiry being made from Baba (accused) he informed that she had gone to her parental house. Thereafter on further inquiry being made he tried to run away and was caught hold of by villagers and thereafter this witness states that he called Ram Asre. On an inquiry being made by Ram Asre, accused confessed that he had inflicted two lathi blows to Munnibai and had left her in Magervilla nullah and was not aware that whether she had died or survived. Thereafter the accused was taken to Police check post and then to Magervilla nullah from where skeleton bangles sari etc. were seized. He could not identify the sari of the deceased. Thereafter the accused was taken to Police check post and then to Magervilla nullah from where skeleton bangles sari etc. were seized. He could not identify the sari of the deceased. The witness could not state how the accused-appellant turned ascetic and was not aware about the current relation of the accused with Munnibai. The witness has deposed that no flesh was found over the skeleton, it could not be stated whether it was of Munnibai. The witness stated that the sari was the same which was found from the spot but the witness has not co-related the sari with the deceased. The colour of the bangles could also not be stated, ear rings also were not shown to the witnesses or identified by him. The other three witnesses are patwari. Sub inspector and doctor, PW 4, 5 and 6 respectively. 10. In the back-ground of the evidence led it has to be examined in the case whether the extra judicial confession which is said to be made, has been proved and can be termed to be extra judicial confession made voluntarily? In the instant case to prove the extra judicial confession three witnesses have been examined and all of them have given their different version with respect to confession made. Dehati Nalish mentions that accused has informed the clerk "I had killed her with Baka and lathi and have thrown her in Magervilla nullah". This story has been totally changed, to accord with the medical evidence. Harchatwa PW 3 states that inflicting of two lathi blows alongwith the confession that the accused stated he was not aware whether she died or survived. The place where the accused allegedly has confessed are also different, PW 1 has not stated the exact words but has simply stated that accused informed that he killed Munnibai and had thrown her in Magervilla nullah similar is the statement of Ram Asre (PW 2). 11. The version of the FIR in that the accused confessed to have killed the deceased by baka and lathi, baka is sharp edged weapon, no sharp edged injury was found over the skeleton and V.S. Badkul (PW 6) Senior Medico legal Expert of Medico-legal Institute, Bhopal has opined in paragraph No.4 of his deposition that fracture were caused in the skull and jaw region by hard and blunt object. The version of the FIR has been changed and by the prosecution as to the weapon of the offence confessed by the accused to only lathi as deposed by PW 3 Harchatva, whereas Ram Asre PW 2 and Sunderial PW 1 have not even stated with what weapon accused confessed to have inflicted injury over the deceased It is a case where the prosecution rests mainly on the extra judicial confession. The extra judicial confession should not suffer any infirmity, if it is to be acted upon. In the instant case since no sharp edged weapon injury has been found which was the initial version of the prosecution, the infirmity is caused as to the extra judicial confession made by the accused as it is inconsistent with the medical evidence. It may be seen that in the similar circumstances in the case of Chhitlar v. State of Rajasthan, reported in AIR 1994 SC 214 , where the extra judicial confession was retracted, the body was recovered 20 days later and it was in a highly decomposed state and the medical evidence did not corroborate the confession of the accused that he hit the deceased on the head and other parts of the body. In that case it was held that extra judicial confession was inconsistent with the medical evidence and infinity was caused in relying upon the extrajudicial confession. 12. We would examine the nature of the extra judicial confession made in the instant case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Heramba Hrahma & another State Assam reported in AIR 1982 SC 1595 has laid down as under: "We are at a loss to understand how the High Court accepted the evidence on this extra judicial confession without examining the credentials of PW 2 Bistiram, without ascertaining the words used. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Heramba Hrahma & another State Assam reported in AIR 1982 SC 1595 has laid down as under: "We are at a loss to understand how the High Court accepted the evidence on this extra judicial confession without examining the credentials of PW 2 Bistiram, without ascertaining the words used. without referring to the decision of this Court, to be presently mentioned wherein it is succinctly stated that extra judicial confession to afford a piece of reliable evidence must pass the test of reproduction of exact words, the reason or motive for confession and person selected in whom confidence is reposed." In deciding whether the confession attracts the provision of section 24 of the Evidence Act, the question has to be considered from the point of time of the confession made by the accused/appellant when the threat of life and promise made to him for his life were operating in his mind. In the instant case it is the statement of PW 1 Sunderlal that initially on being questioned the accused did not disclose anything thereafter some villagers were called. Ram Asrc (PW 2) has given a different story that the accused was found by him near Mahua tree and the villagers were harassing him, he asked not to harass the accused he has admitted that several persons surrounded the accused on this, Ran1 Asre is said to have told the accused that he would try to save him from police. PW 3 has deposed that on an enquiry as to his wife, the accused told that she has gone to her parental place and thereafter. several persons made interrogation of the accused, on being harassed he started running away, he was caught hold by the villagers and thereafter again interrogation started by the villagers and PW-2 Ram Asre only then accused is said to have confessed that two lathi blows had been inflicted on the deceased and he was not aware whether she has died or not. Thus it is clear from the statement that the accused was put under great harrassement and the circumstances were created to the accused either to confess or to be dealt by large number of persons. Thus it is clear from the statement that the accused was put under great harrassement and the circumstances were created to the accused either to confess or to be dealt by large number of persons. And in order to save his skin he had made such confession, even an innocent person when put under threat can be made to confess just to save his own life. In the case of Satbir Singh and another v. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1977 SC 1294 it has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the extra judicial confession must be considered from the point of view of confessing accused as to how inducement threat or promise proceeding from person in authority would operate in his mind. 13 That in a case of Param Hans Yadav & Sadanand Tripathi v. State of Bihar and Others, reported in (1987) 2 SCC 197 , an extra judicial confession was made by an accused who was being badly beaten, soon after bomb blast. It was held that coming to the extra judicial confession it has to be remembered that the same related to the point of time contemporaneous to the Incident" Even accepting the prosecution story that Yadav made this statement he appears to have made the statement following assault on him. Even if it is accepted that Yadav has made the statements as alleged, can the same be utilised against Sadanand is the next aspect for consideration. Obviously, when Yadav was beaten up he must have been anxious to ensure that the assault stopped. His plea in such a situation would neither be voluntary nor natural. It would not be proper to rely on the same for any purpose. "In the instant case the accused was not aware whether his wife has died or survived he was surrounded by the angry villagers who caught hold of him and he was being harassed by the villagers thus the accused was put in threat of his own security. Therefore, so called extra judicial confession is of no utility and cannot be said to be voluntarily made without fear as to the security of his own person by the accused 14. Therefore, so called extra judicial confession is of no utility and cannot be said to be voluntarily made without fear as to the security of his own person by the accused 14. In the case of R.V. Felton (1628) 3 How hr 371 it has been laid down that" no punishment as torture by the rack was known or allowed by our law" The decision in the case cited above paved the way for the common law doctrine in England that all confessions must be voluntary and it is unquestioned 'today that a confession obtained by physical violence or threat of physical violence is not receivable in evidence. A threat of corporal violence is the clearest case of an inducement that excludes the confession. To escape the disagreeable consequence of silence, whip, gallows, or rack the threatened person naturally prefers to utter what his tormentors desire to hear the confession. He trusts to chance to enable him to repudiate his untrue avowal and indicate his innocence or perhaps, under the violent pain of the rack, he thinks of nothing but the present relief from agony which his confession will gain him. Thus, a confession obtained by the rack or a threat of the rack is in-admissible and the confession made in fear of mob is also inadmissible. 15. In the case of Kishore Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in (1991) 1 SCC 286 it has been held by Hon. the Supreme Court that an unambiguous extra Judicial confession possesses high provative value force as it emanates from the person who committed the crime and is admissible in evidence provided it is free from suspicion and suggestion of its falsity. But in the process of the proof of the alleged confession the Court-has to be satisfied that it is a voluntary one and does not appear to be the result of inducement threat or promise envisaged under section 24 or was brought about in suspicious circumstances to circumvent sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act The Court has to look into the surrounding circumstances and to find whether the extra judicial confession is not inspired by any improper or collateral consideration or circumvention of the law suggesting that it may not be true one. Therefore, even the extra judicial confession will also have to be proved like any other fact. Therefore, even the extra judicial confession will also have to be proved like any other fact. The value of the evidence as to the confession depends upon the varacity of the witness to whom it is made, the time and place of making it and the circumstances in which it came to be made and the actual words used by the accused. Sometimes, it may not be possible to the witness to reproduce the actual words in which the confession was made. For that reason the law insists on recording the statement by a judicial Magistrate after administering all necessary warnings to the accused that it would be used as evidence against him. In the instant case even the confession indicate that it is not voluntary one and has not been proved like any other fact, the surrounding circumstances makes it doubtful. 16. In a similar circumstance in the case of Makhan Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1988 SC 1705 where extra judicial confession was made that person was not having some influence with the police or a person of some status to protect the appellant from harassment and there was crowd of 10 to 12 persons, the extra judicial confession made was discarded. In the instant case also there were 8 to 10 persons and Ram Asre is not a person or authority who could save the accused. Thus, there were no prudent reasons with the accused to have confessed the guilt, as alleged. 17. We have evidence of Ram Asre (PW 2) in the instant case about alleged extra judicial confession of the appellant, there is nothing on record to show that the appellant had any reason to take PW 2 Ram Asre into the confidence and believe that he would save him from the trouble after getting him arrested if he confessed his guilt to him, which is essential element of a extra judicial confession, that to whom the extra judicial confession is to be made must enjoy the confidence of the accused and the accused had reason to believe that he can be saved by the person to whom he made the confession. In the similar circumstances in the case of Ghanshyam v. State of U.P. AIR 1988 SC 295 extra judicial confession made to the persons not enjoying the confidence and belief that such a person may save the accused from trouble was held to be doubtful. 18. It may be seen that in the case of State of M.P. v. Dayaram Hemraj reported in AIR 1981 SC 2007 , Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that what has been said by the accused must be stated by the witnesses. In the instant case PW 1 and PW 2 have failed to state in any manner whatsoever the exact words stated by the accused. Both have stated that the accused has confessed to kill his wife whereas PW 3 Harchatva had stated that accused only admitted of inflicting two lathi blows and was not aware whether his wife had died or not. Thus, no confession as per PW-3 was made by the accused that he had killed his wife, whereas as per evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 the accused had said to have made confession, Though, the exact reproduction of words may not be insisted by each and every witness but in substance the witnesses must be able to prove the words used by the accused while making extra judicial confession i.e. sequence because extra judicial confession has to be taken as a whole. 19. In Brady v. United States 397 US 742 : 90 S ct 1430 it has been held that" Guilty pleas are valid if are both " voluntary" and "intelligent" and the record must disclose the same. "The evidence led in the instant case failed to satisfy both the requirements. There was no reason for the accused to disclose the fact to Ram Asre. Confession cannot be said to be intelligent', in any case it was not 'voluntary', as discussed hereinabove. The confession in the instant case has been retracted as such it cannot be acted upon until substantially corroborated by independent circumstances. General corroboration has to be sought from the surrounding circumstances as per the test laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Boota Singh and others, reported in AIR 1978 SC 1770 . 20. General corroboration has to be sought from the surrounding circumstances as per the test laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Boota Singh and others, reported in AIR 1978 SC 1770 . 20. In the case of Puran v. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1953 SC 459 , it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that" It is a settled rule of evidence that unless a retracted confession is corroborated in material particulars, it is not purdent to base a conviction in criminal case on its strength alone In the case of Mohd. Hussain Umar Kochara v. K.S. Dalipsinghji and another reported in AIR 1970 SC 45 it has been laid down by the Apex Court that retracted confession can be used in support of other evidence, it cannot be made foundation of conviction, in the instant case, it is not even the evidence of any witness of having last seen the accused going towards the nullah from where the dead body was found, the only evidence of PW 1 is that he had left Jugla and Munnibai at their house and thereafter Sunderlal (PW I) had left for three days. Harchatva (PW 3) has clearly stated in his examination-in-chief that he did not see the accused and Munnibai going together, on the contrary he stated that for 3-4 days Saba (accused) had gone outside. This witness has not stated that the accused had taken Munnibai along-with him. He stated that frequently accused used to go to Chitrakoot, etc, since the accused has turned ascetic. In the instant case circumstantial evidence docs not complete chain, it does not lend credibility to the so-called extra judicial confession, surrounding circumstance does not indicate that there was any immediate quarrel of the accused and Munnibai. They have started living together is the only evidence which fall much short of creating the circumstances against the accused. 21. In the instant case Chhota Kevat happens to be the husband of the sister of the deceased and he and Sundarlal had called Ram Asre but Chhota Kevat has not been examined. Ram Asre has deposed that he was called by Sunde rial and Chhota Kevat, Whereas Harchatva has deposed that it was he who called Ram Asre and others. Thus, there is discrepancy as to who called Ram Asre. Ram Asre has deposed that he was called by Sunde rial and Chhota Kevat, Whereas Harchatva has deposed that it was he who called Ram Asre and others. Thus, there is discrepancy as to who called Ram Asre. Other material persons have also not been examined in the case. 22. There is material discrepancy in the case as to the important aspect whether the accused had informed the villagers and shown the place of incident and had taken them to that place, where human skeleton, broken bangles, hair and sari were lying. The version of the FIR Ex P-1 indicates that accused was taken by the police for the first time to the place where the dead body was found. The information memo (Ex P-4) indicates that the accused had informed the Police that Munnibai's dead body was placed by him in Magarvilla nullah, whereas FIR shows entirely different version. it was already known to the complainant that where the dead body, bangles and other articles were lying. Thus the contradiction in the FIR and subsequent investigation caused serious discrepancy as to the veracity of the extra judicial confession and method and manner in which the investigation took-place. Sundarlal (PW 1) has stated that Munshi of the Hinota check post went to the spot with the accused whereas the concerned police station officer that of Chandla K.K. Paharia (PW 5) has given different version that he had taken the accused to the spot. Thus the investigation made by Hinota Police Station, as per Sundarlal PW 2 has been kept in total dark. Thus, the very recording of the information (Ex P-4) under section 27 of the Evidence "Act could not be relied upon in view of the statement of PW 1. para 2 and the recovery pursuant to the said information as alleged by the prosecution is hit not only by the FIR but also by the version of Simdarlal (PW1) the complainant in the case. The dehati Nalish has resulted in recording of FIR whereas Sundarlal says that he himself has lodged the report (Para 2) at PS Chandla, thus, there was no occasion sq as to resort to the dehati nalish if the report was lodged by the complainant to P.S. himself. This creates doubt as to the dehati Nalish veracity. The recovery pursuant to the information cannot be relied upon 23. This creates doubt as to the dehati Nalish veracity. The recovery pursuant to the information cannot be relied upon 23. It is a case based on the circumstantial evidence. In the case of circumstantial evidence all the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully and cogently established, the proved circumstances should be of conclusive nature and definite tendency. unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused. They should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. The circumstances must be satisfactorily established and the proved circumstances must bring home the offences to the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. It is not necessary that each circumstances by itself be conclusive but cumulatively must form unbroken chain of events leading to the proof of the guilt of the accused. If these circumstances or some of them can be explained by any of the reasonable hypothesis then the accused must have the benefit of that hypothesis. In assessing the evidence imaginary possibilities have no role to play. The chain of events must be completed and must be consistent with the guilt and outs the possibility of innocence of the accused. In the instant case extra judicial confession could not be said to be voluntary one and is merely irrelevant in vice of the section 24 of the Evidence Act. The accused has also denied to have made any confession to the villagers but to the police under the threat and compulsion is also inadmissible, In the instant case there is total lack of evidence and as to the any immediate strain in the relationship of the accused and his wife. PW 1 has stated in para 4 that there is no quarrel between Munnibai and accused Ram Asre PW 2 has also stated that he was not aware as to the nature of relation-ship of the accused with his wife after they had started living together. Harchatva (PW 3) has also not stated any immediate cause or trouble or quarrel between the accused and his wife. The fact that the accused had turned ascetic prior to 4-5 years docs not militate against the innocence of the accused rather shows his disinterest towards the worldly affairs. There is nothing on record to indicate the immediate quarrel between the accused and his wife to make a circumstance consistent with the guilt. 24. The fact that the accused had turned ascetic prior to 4-5 years docs not militate against the innocence of the accused rather shows his disinterest towards the worldly affairs. There is nothing on record to indicate the immediate quarrel between the accused and his wife to make a circumstance consistent with the guilt. 24. In the instant case there is yet another infirmity the human skeleton which was found in nullah, it ,vas not possible to identify by a mere look that whether it belonged to male or female, hence the police made inquiry to the doctor V.S Badkul PW 6 who opined the skeleton belongs to the lady "'ho has died in between 1 to 2 ,veeks. Sundarlal (PW1) has stated that bangles and sari belong to Munni but when he was confronted with the sari (Article) he could not state whether it belongs to Munni. He has further stated that it was not possible to identify from the skeleton structure that it belongs to Munni nor from the hair it could be said that they were of Munni and there was doubt created from the bangles and sari that they were of Munni. This witness has not stated with certainty that the bangles and the sari (Article A) was of Munni. Thus, the deposition of Sundarlal fall short to establish that the seized articles belong to Munni. It is clear that it was not possible to identify from the skeleton whether it belongs to male or female since there was no flesh left on it. Ram Asre (PW 2) has stated in para 6 of his deposition that he could not say that the skeleton belonged to Murwi. This witness has further admitted that he had not even seen Munni Bai's face at any point of time because she used to put veil. This witness has also not identified any of the articles. They were not at all shown to the witness, he has not stated that the articles belong to Munnibai. Harchatva PW 3 is only other witness who has stated that the human skeleton was found near the nullah. Bangles, sari and hair were also found, Sari could not be identified by him when shown to him, in his examination-in-chief. He has further deposed in the cross-examination that it could not be stated by him that whether skeleton belonged to Munnibai. Bangles, sari and hair were also found, Sari could not be identified by him when shown to him, in his examination-in-chief. He has further deposed in the cross-examination that it could not be stated by him that whether skeleton belonged to Munnibai. He has stated that the articles are same which were found from the spot but he has not stated that they belonged to the deceased Munnibai. Even bangles colour could not be stated by the fitness nor earring was identified by him. Thus, the total evidence on record falls much short of proving that the articles, earring, hair and bangles belong to the deceased Munni. 25. Recovery at the instance of the accused is also doubtful, as the FIR says that the accused has informed the villagers and everything was seen by them on the spot prior to lodging the report and police of Hinota check post have also seen the spot prior to the machinery of the police station Chandla was informed, thus it could not be said that the recovery was made at the instance of the accused. Thus, important link so as to complete the chain of circumstances is also missing in the case. Ex P/3 information memo leading to the recovery of lathi. It is mentioned that the accused had informed that the lathi was lying in the room of this house, whereas Ram Asre (PW 2) as to the seizure of lathi has stated that it was seized from open land, not from the room of the house of the accused. Ramhit and Bania Kevat have not been examined by the prosecution. 26. The motive has also not been satisfactorily established. The prosecution has totally failed to prove the motive of the accused for committing the offence under section 302 or 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused had started living with his wife Munnibai, had there been any motive for the accused to kill his wife, the accused would not have turned ascetic and there is no evidence of immediate strain in the relationship. The evidence as to administering the poison is also based on hearsay. The incident was of several years back and after 4-5 years could not be the motive and the motive itself could not prove the guilt. The motive itself has not been satisfactorily established. The evidence as to administering the poison is also based on hearsay. The incident was of several years back and after 4-5 years could not be the motive and the motive itself could not prove the guilt. The motive itself has not been satisfactorily established. The circumstances are not proving that it was the accused who has committed the murder. The prosecution has also failed to prove that the articles like bangles, sari, hair, etc. belong to deceased Munni. In the absence of the evidence of the eye witness and even the evidence of last seen accused could not be held guilty and further in the absence of proving that the recovery having been made at the instance of the accused guilt of the accused has not been proved beyond the periphery of doubt. He is entitled for acquittal. In the instant case as deposed by Ram Asre (PW 2) the confession was of the result of inducement and element of fear could not be ruled-out. Hence, the so-called confession is clearly inadmissible. In the result for the foregoing reasons, we allow the appeal. The appellant is acquitted. He shall be released from jail, forthwith, unless wanted in any other crime.