S. K. AGARWAL, J. The appellant has preferred this appeal against his conviction under Sections 302/201 I. P. C. read with Section 34 I. P. C. and consequent sentence to life imprisonment and three years, R. I. under the abovesaid counts. The judgment of conviction was deliverered by the Sessions Judge, Saharanpur, in S. T. No. 238 of 1980 connected with S. T. No. 391 of 1980. 2. P. W. 1 Mani Ram, the first informant, was resident of Mulla Nagrajpur alias Mullapur Kadim at the time of occurrence. He had three children. One was a son, aged about 6 years and the other children were daughters. He was employed as a compounder at a clinic in the city of Saharanpur. He was also running a small clinic at his house in his village. 3. The story of the case revolves round kidnapping and subsequent murder of Raj Kumar, son of the informant. This boy had gone to his school with his sisters on 7-2-1980 in the morning. He returned to his house for taking his lunch curing the noon hours with his sisters. He stayed back at home. The sisters went back to the school. He came out of his house after having taken his food and started playing outside. Thereafter his whereabouts were not know. The search for him by the members of his family yielded no result. Mani Ram was called from Saharanpur. He also participated in the futile search which was made inside the village for the boy. The report of Gumsudgi of this boy Raj Kumar was lodged at P. S. Kotwali Dehat by Mani Ram on 7-2- 1980 At 7. 20 p. m. It was recorded in the General Diary, copy of which is Ext. Ka-80. In the report no suspicion was cast against anyone. The victim was seen by one Ram Dass (P. W. 2) at about 1. 30 p. m. On the date of occurrence, i. e. 7-2-1980 in the company of the appellants, Bhoora and Shakil near the house of the informant. Bhoora was driving bicycle while the other two were pushing him from behind. The victim was seen by one Ram Dass (P. W. 2) at about 1. 30 p. m. On the date of occurrence, i. e. 7-2-1980 in the company of the appellants, Bhoora and Shakil near the house of the informant. Bhoora was driving bicycle while the other two were pushing him from behind. At the same time P. W. 3 Karam Singh had also seen the appellant and his cousins Shafi and Salim Ahmad sitting near the mend of the field of Shree Ram Pradhan and the deceased boy enjoying the company of Bhoora and Shakil, two acquitted accused, at some distance near the canal. On 7-2-1980 these two witnesses conveyed this information to P. W. 7 Ram Chandra, brother of informant Mani Ram (P. W. 1 ). Thereafter on 8- 2-1980 around 6. 30 a. m. informant found a letter (Ext. 1) placed at the window of his village clinic. This letter made a demand of Rs. 30,000/- for the release of his son Raj Kumar. The informant made no revelation of this letter to anyone. On 10-2-1980 this witness claimed that an old man had delivered another letter (Ext. 2) to P. W. 9 Yaseen, who is running a tea shop in Deola for being handed over to him. Yaseen passed on this letter to another witness P. W. 8 Vijai Singh, who in his turn handed over the same to the informant Mani Ram on the same day at about 3. 45 p. m. Mani Ram claimed that he had written a reply (Ext. Ka 3) wherein he had asked the accused persons to release his son alive. He had also pleaded his inability to arrange such a large sum. He further wrote in this letter that he will make the payment through a common acquaintance whatever money he could manage in the meantime. Mani Ram claimed to have placed the letter at the appointed place, as directed in that letters. The letter was actually placed near the culvert. He waited for about 4 hours from 8. 00 p. m. to midnight on that day nearby that culvert, but according to him none turned to pickup his letter. He again visited that place on 11-2-1980 in the morning. He found yet another letter (Ext. 3 ) placed over there. The command of ransom was repeated in this letter against and an additional sum of Rs. 00 p. m. to midnight on that day nearby that culvert, but according to him none turned to pickup his letter. He again visited that place on 11-2-1980 in the morning. He found yet another letter (Ext. 3 ) placed over there. The command of ransom was repeated in this letter against and an additional sum of Rs. 100/- was also demanded. This letter shows that the time limit for payment of ransom was fixed to be 7. 30 p. m. on Monday. 4. Informant Mani Ram had not disclosed anything either to the police or to any one amongst his associates, friends or family members about these letters. These letters were handed ever by him to the police on 13-2-1980 after discovery of the deadbody of his son on 12-2-1980. On 12-2-1980 at about 7. 20 a. m. the deadbody was noticed lying in a pit in the sugarcane field of Shree Ram Pradhan by his servant. The information of presence of a young boys deadbody was conveyed to P. W. 1 Mani Ram and his brother Ram Chand. On digging the pit the deadbody of Raj Kumar was recovered. An injury was noticed behing his neck. An information about the discovery of the deady body was conveyed by Ram Chand to P. S. Kotwali Dehat at about 9. 0 a. m. on 12-2-1980 itself. 5. The inquest wad drawn on the body by the Sub-Inspector and after completing other formalities such as recording the evidence of the witnesses a charge-sheet was submitted by the police for prosecution of live accused persons. These accused persons were appellant Kamar, two of his brothers Bhoora and Shakil, Shafi and Salim, who are his cousins being sons of his mothers sister. All the accused persons excepting the appellant Kumar have been acquitted by the trial Court. 6. Accused Kumar and Shafi were arrested by the Investigating Officer around noon hours on 13-2-1980 from the culvert near Chilkana road. Their arrests were effected on an information received from an informer. The interrogation of appellant Kumar resulted into discovery, at his pointing out, of the weapon of assault, knife, Khurpi and blood stained towel (Exts. 5, 6, and 4 respectively) from his own house. Ext. Ka-3, the letter left by Mani Ram at the culvert on 10-2-1980, was also recovered from a box from the house of the appellant. 7. The interrogation of appellant Kumar resulted into discovery, at his pointing out, of the weapon of assault, knife, Khurpi and blood stained towel (Exts. 5, 6, and 4 respectively) from his own house. Ext. Ka-3, the letter left by Mani Ram at the culvert on 10-2-1980, was also recovered from a box from the house of the appellant. 7. Post-mortem examintion on the deadbody of Raj Kumar was conducted by P. W. 12 Dr. A. K. Pant at about 3. 45 p. m. on 13-2- 1980. In the opinion of Dr. Pant three days had elapsed since the death of the boy. This, according to him, is open to a margin of a day on either side. The rigor mortis had passed of in both extremities but there was no sign of decomposition of the body. The ante-mortem injury noted in the course of post-mortem was a punctured wound 2 cm. x 2 cm x bone deep on the left side of the neck in the lower part with clotted blood present around the wound and the 7th cervical vertebra was found clearly cut on the left side. The cut portion was found lying 1 c. m. away from the vertebra. Margins of the wound were clean cut. Mening is was also found cut on the left side at the level of 7th cervical vertebra. Certain post-mortem injuries were also noticed. They are as under : "1. Abrasion 6 x 5 c. m. on the right side face including part of forehead, nose upper eyelid and cheek. 2. Abrasion 8 x 3 cm. on right side back lower part. 3. Multiple abrasions in an area of 6 x 5 cm. left side back lower part. 4. Abrasion 4 x 2 cm. on back of right wrist. 5. Lacerated wound circular in share 7 x 7 cm. x bone deep right side back of head. In the opinion of the doctor, the abovesaid post-mortem injuries No. 1 to 4 could be the result of ant biting and injury No. 5 may be the result of some animal bites. No bleeding was present from any of the above said post-mortem injuries. In his pinion the death was the consequence of shock and haemorrhage as a result of the injury on the back of the neck. It was, in his opinion, sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. No bleeding was present from any of the above said post-mortem injuries. In his pinion the death was the consequence of shock and haemorrhage as a result of the injury on the back of the neck. It was, in his opinion, sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Post- mortem examintion report is Ext. Ka-7 on the record. 8. The prosecution relied upon the following circumstances to prove its case against the appellant: 1. Three accused, namely, Kumar, Shafi and Salim Ahmad were seen sitting together at or near the mend of Shree Ram Pradhans sugarcane field on 7-2-1980 at about 1. 30 p. m. 2. Extra-judicial confession made by applicant Kamar to P. W. 5 Hari Singh at the Railway Station on 11-2- 1980 at about 8. 00 a. m. 3. Discovery of knife, Khurpi and towel besides the letter Ext. Ka-3 at the instance of appellant Kamar from his house on 13-2-1980 by the Sub-Inspector, the Investigating Officer. 4. Denial of literacy by Salim Ahmad. He pleaded to be an illiterate person and the prosecution has successfully proved that he had student upto class VIII. 9. The learned Sessions Judge was of the opinion that Circumstance No. 1 is not proved on record. The finding returned by him is as follows: "in other words thus there is no evidence of Ram Kumar deceased having been seen last in the company of the accused Kamar, Shafi or Salim Ahmad. He is claimed to have been seen with Bhoora and Shakil no doubt but there is no evidence that these three came into contact with Kamar, Shafi or Salim Ahmad. It is doubtful indeed as I mentioned above that Karan Singh really saw Kamar, Shafi and Salim Ahmad together but even if he did so as he claims this cannot by itself lead to the inference that they joined hands in killing Raj Kumar or in burrying him underground or that they were together at that place with such object or design. Their being together at the place is not incapable of being explained on either hypothesis. " Thus, he had not accepted the evidence of P. W. 2 and 3 both, who had seen these three accused persons taking away the child and thereafter playing with him near the mend of sugarcane field of Shree Ram Pradhan. 10. Their being together at the place is not incapable of being explained on either hypothesis. " Thus, he had not accepted the evidence of P. W. 2 and 3 both, who had seen these three accused persons taking away the child and thereafter playing with him near the mend of sugarcane field of Shree Ram Pradhan. 10. Dealing with the second circumstance, referred to above, he has returned a finding in the following words: "the alleged ailment of his father-in-law is indicated to be neither genuine or serious. It is only after the deadbody had been extracted on the 12th and suspicion was raused against Kamar and others by other evidence that P. W. Hari Singh lent his helping hand. The defence has made positive suggestion to the effect that he is related to P. W. Ram Chand (brother of Mani Ram) being married in the same family. Ram Chand went to the extent of even pretending that he cannot re-collect the name of his father- in- law. To my mind the testimony of P. W. Hari Singh is concocted and he fails to inspire confidence. " He has further recorded finding as under: "in the reported case it was found as in the present that there was no history of previous association between the witness and the accused as may justify the inference that the accused could repose confidence in him. In the circumstances it was considered highly improbable that the accused would go to the witness and blurt out a confession. " Thus, the learned Sessions Judge, in our opinion, had rejected the evidence of extrajudicial confession for very cogent reason. 11. Dealing with Circumstance No. 3, which is regarding the recovery of weapons of assault, a knife, Khurpi and a bloodstained towel, the learned Sessions Judge has returned a finding in the following words: "the discovery of these items at the instance and on the pointing of Kamar accused may not, therefore, be doubted in my view. " 12. The learned Sessions Judge appears to have relied upon only recovery of the letter (Ext. Ka-2) from the place, i. e. the residence of the appellant. The recovery of the knife and the khurpi was discarded on the ground that there was no blood on the same. Apart from recovery of the letter (Ext. Ka-3) the Sessions Judge has also placed reliance upon conduct of Salim Ahmad. Ka-2) from the place, i. e. the residence of the appellant. The recovery of the knife and the khurpi was discarded on the ground that there was no blood on the same. Apart from recovery of the letter (Ext. Ka-3) the Sessions Judge has also placed reliance upon conduct of Salim Ahmad. He had posed a question to himself in the following words: "the question remains whether on the mere strength of Salim Ahmad being educated as mentioned above it can be inferred that he is the author of the letters Exts. 1, 2 and 3 or any of them as is sought to be contended for the State. Learned D. G. C. referred to presumption under Section 114 Evidence Act. In order that any such presumption may be raised to attending circumstances relevant to the issue have necessarily to be taken in consideration. There is not an iota of evidence on the record for the prosecution to attribute the authorship of these letters to Salim Ahmad. None says that he saw him writing any of them. There is none to say that he is acquainted with the hand writing of this accused and that the letters appear to be in his hand. The investigation points that despite the efforts made they could not lay hands upon any other writing of the accused to enable comparison by an expert. It is a case thus where evidence is nil on the point of authorship of the said letters. If there were some evidence to that effect it may be the adverse inference suggested by denial of Salim Ahmad as to his being educated may have lent added strength but the mere fact of his being educated cannot lead safely to the conclusion that he is the author of these letters. There are various possibilities not excluded in the case. The services of any third person may have been procured by the miscreants interested. It is not even made to or averred for the prosecution that none of the other accused for instance Shafi or even Kamar for that matter is literate. We do not know in the situation whether Salim Ahmad is author of these letters or of any of them at all. It is not even made to or averred for the prosecution that none of the other accused for instance Shafi or even Kamar for that matter is literate. We do not know in the situation whether Salim Ahmad is author of these letters or of any of them at all. The position in relation to Kamar against whom adverse inference has been drawn in the above during the course of discussion of circumstance No. (iii) is distinct because in his there is the vital confession admissible under Section 27 Evidence Act, but in so far as Salim Ahmad is concerned there is no admissible place of evidence to link the authorship of the letters with the fact of his being literate. Suspicion howsoever grave is not the substitute for proof. When the evidence against the accused person particularly when he is charged with a grave offence like murder, consists of only circumstances and not direct oral evidence it must be qualitatively such that on every reasonable hypothesis, the conclusion must be that the accused is guilty, not fantastic possibilities nor freak inferences but rational deduction which reasonable minds make from probative force of facts and circumstances. " Finally in view of the discussions of these two circumstances the conviction of the appellant was rested by the learned Sessions Judge and other four persons were granted the benefit of doubt and acquitted. 13. We have examined the evidence thoroughly ourselves and are of the opinion that in the present case the conviction of the appellant could not be rested on the two circumstances alone as formulated by the learned Sessions Judge in his order dated 28- 10-1980. Since the recovery of knife and Khurpi was not accepted as linked with the offence by the learned Sessions Judge, the recovery of these articles thus cannot be considered incrimination and relied upon to connect the appellant with the offence of murder. So far as recovery of letter (Ext. Ka-3) is concerned, the possibility that anyone of these living in the house of the appellant having kept the same in the box and the appellant had only the knowledge of its presence cannot be excluded. It is in evidence that appellant Kamar along with his brother Bhoora, Shakil and other members of the family was living in the same house. It is in evidence that appellant Kamar along with his brother Bhoora, Shakil and other members of the family was living in the same house. The authorship of this letter has not been acknowledged to Salim by the learned Sessions Judge nor the prosecution was able to prove the same by leading any cogent evidence, direct or circumstantial. In our opinion, therefore, the recovery of this letter from his house cannot be treated as a piece of circumstance against the appellant to base his conviction in this case. It shall be of little importance to point out at this stage that the informant had received three letters. Ext. Ka-3 was his response to Letter No. 2. All the three letters which were received by the informant were handed over to the Sub-Inspector on 13-2-1980 after the discovery of the deadbody. From 7-2-1980 until 12-2-1980 no one knew about the existence of any of these letters with him. Informant had maintained complete silence about them and for the first time any indication regarding these letters having been received was made by him on 13-2-1980 to the Investigating officer alone. This is yet another circumstance, in our opinion, discrediting the discovery of Ext. Ka-3. Moreover, it has not been connected in any manner with this appellant. Response to which one of these three letters is Ext. Ka-3 has not been proved on record. No one has seen the appellant removing that letter from the culvert where it was placed by Mani Ram. Until that time the informant was having no suspicion upon this appellant and the factum of Ext. Ka-3 being placed at the culvert and waited for four house in the vicinity to see who picks it up is not proved from any independent evidence. Mani Ram is the lone witness of this fact. 14. P. W. 11 Jagpal Singh is the witness of this recovery, According to him the appellant had told him in the following words: "jis JIS CHEEJ SE MAINE KATAL KIYA HAI WOH MERE GHAR PAR RAKHI HAI MAI CHALKAR DE SAKTA HOON. " (The things with which have committed murder is kept in my house and I can get them recovered.) 15. " (The things with which have committed murder is kept in my house and I can get them recovered.) 15. So, according to this witness Kamar had not disclosed about the existence of any letter to him, although in the latter part of his examintion-in-chief he had adverted to the recovery of this letter (Ext. K-3) as well. He stated that these articles were not separately sealed. This letter (Ext. Ka-2) was sealed in an envelope through Ext. Ka-5, the recovery memo. This witness was suggested that he was class fellow of P. W. 1 Mani Ram. He had admitted that he had not stayed in the school after 1. 00 p. m. It is not written in the attendance register, as, according to him, only once the attendance is taken in the school in the morning. He admitted that he cannot leave the school without permission of the principal. He is a teacher. He further claimed that on that date he had left the school after seeking oral permission from the principal. He has admitted that none from the vicinity of the house of Kamar had visited that place. He further admitted that the house of Kamar is located in the Abadi. In front of his house, house of Ram Dass is there. The fard recovery of these articles does not bear any signature of Kamar. So, from his statement the statement of P. W. 14, the Investigating Officer, stands belied that the appellant had made any statement with regard to discovery of the letter. In the circumstances, no value can be attached to the recovery of this letter or any statement of his claimed to have been made under Section 27 of the Evidence Act before discovery of this letter. This statement is vague and does not specify the weapon. It does not, by any stretch of imagination, make slightest hint towards Ext. Ka-3. 16. The probability that these letters were prepared after arrest of this appellant and other co-accused is not easily possible to eliminate. This statement is vague and does not specify the weapon. It does not, by any stretch of imagination, make slightest hint towards Ext. Ka-3. 16. The probability that these letters were prepared after arrest of this appellant and other co-accused is not easily possible to eliminate. In the circumstance, adverted to above, specially when the informant has kept these letters close to his chest for nearly 6-7 days and no one either the Investigating Officer or his family members or any village could come to know about the existence of these letters in between this period clearly negates the existence of these letters upto 13-2-1980 when this appellant was arrested. There is absolutely no evidence as to how and when the complicity of this appellant was known to the persecution. The extra-judicial confession made by this appellant to P. W. 5 Hari Singh was already discarded by the learned Sessions Judge as unreliable. We have also examined his statement and are at a loss to gather from his evidence the date on which this confession was made by the appellant to him. Moreover, we do not find any sound reason behind the appellants making such an extra-judicial confession to this witness. He is an ordinary villager and could not have helped him in persuading either the police or the informant, father of the deceased boy to forgive his crime. This witness has disclosed this fact to the Investigating officer on the day the body was discovered. He claimed that he returned on that day from his father-in-laws house. He had gone to Mullapur via his village. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence showing complicity of the appellant being known to the police before discovery of this letter it is not possible for us to accept the discovery of this letter at the instance of the appellant. In our opinion, these letters was fabricated and planted upon the appellant and his brother Salim Ahmad. The learned Sessions Judge has not accepted the evidence, for cogent reasons, of the authorship of Salim Ahmad of these letters received by Mani Ram. This was the main circumstance upon which the learned Sessions Judge has placed reliance for resting conviction of the appellant. There is no other circumstance which may connect the appellant with the crime. The learned Sessions Judge has not accepted the evidence, for cogent reasons, of the authorship of Salim Ahmad of these letters received by Mani Ram. This was the main circumstance upon which the learned Sessions Judge has placed reliance for resting conviction of the appellant. There is no other circumstance which may connect the appellant with the crime. In our opinion, the learned Sessions Judge was motivated more by his moral conviction in holding the appellant guilty of the murder of Raj Kumar than his reliance upon the evidence. 17. Over and above all this an important question remains still for examination, how these recovered articles including the letter, Ext. Ka-3, incriminate the appellant in this offence even if, for the sake of argument, we assume that these articles were recovered at the instance of the appellant. It is well settled that no recovery becomes increminating simply ipso facto. To make it so the prosecution has to lead such evidence which may introduce in it the element of criminality. To attract any element of criminality against the accused it is essential to establish his authorship to such concealment of this recovered article. It is possible to discharge such burden by proving that the accused who gave the information about the recovered incriminating article himself concealed it there. In this case absolutely no evidence is by the prosecution in this direction. 18. Learned A. G. A. urges that such an inference can be drawn by this Court. We find ourselves squarely unable to subscribe to this submission. In our opinion when the authorship of the concealment of an article is not proved from any cogent and reliable evidence and is left to be inferred or drawn by implication alone, we find it most unsafe though not unlawful to draw any such inference against this appellant especially when there is nothing on record to establish that the accused was able to read and understand the writing (Ext. Ka-3 ). At best, with all possible concessions to prosecution, it may give rise to an inference that the appellant was knowing about its existence at the place from where it was recovered. Yet, in the absence of the fact that he also know the contents of this letter, this inference alone does not rescue the prosecution from ignominy. Ka-3 ). At best, with all possible concessions to prosecution, it may give rise to an inference that the appellant was knowing about its existence at the place from where it was recovered. Yet, in the absence of the fact that he also know the contents of this letter, this inference alone does not rescue the prosecution from ignominy. It had miserably failed in proving the crucial test attached to the criminality from the discovery of this letter, Ext. Ka-3,at the instance of this appellant. We are fortified in our conclusion by an Apex Court decision Pokhalya Motya Valvi v. State of Maharashtra, (1980) 1 S. C. C. 530. 19. It shall be relevant to point out that apart from the evidence of P. Ws. 2 and 3, who claimed to have seen three of the accused including the appellant sitting in the afternoon near or on mend of Shree Ram Pradhan together and later on P. W. 2 Ram Dass claimed to have seen these three accused persons including the appellant moving with the boy, that too during noon hours was discarded. These circumstances do not in any manner connect this appellant with the offence was the finding returned by the learned Sessions Judge himself. Moreover, there is absolutely no other evidence that the appellant and the co-accused were seen in the company of the deceased boy at any point of time in between 7-2- 1980 and 12-2-1980. Thus, there is absolutely evidence on record to establish that they were the persons who were responsible for the abduction of the deceased boy and thereafter commission of his murder and burial of his body in a pit in the sugarcane field of Shree Ram Pradhan. In the circumstances, there remains no evidence whatsoever against this accused. Conviction of this appellant cannot be affirmed on the basis of the evidence on record. He is entitled to benefit of doubt. Suspicion howsoever strong cannot take place of evidence. 20. In the light of the discussions made above, this appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 28- 10-1980 of the trial Court is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the offences charged for. He is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are cancelled an sureties discharged. Appeal allowed.