JUDGMENT 1. - Manoj accused has filed this appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.PC. Challenging the judgment and order dated 22.3.1999 delivered by Additional Sessions Judge, Rajgarh District Churu. By the impugned judgment the court below has convicted the accused appellant under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and have sentenced him for life imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 2000/-. Two years. rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 500/- was awarded under section 201 IPC. 2. The prosecution case in brief is as under : On 7.12.1994 at about 12.00 noon Om Prakash and Prabhu Singh came in village and disclosed that in the fields of Jaswant Singh situated in boundaries of village Ghadau near the way one boy is lying dead. Upon this, Man Singh P.W. 1. Balwan P.W. 5. Rameshwar PW. 17 and Hawa Singh P.W. 4 went to the place of occurrence and near a tree of khejri saw the dead body of Hanuman Singh aged 16 years who was nephew of Man Singh. There were multiple injuries on the dead body and a bushirt was aiso lying nearby and testicles were also lying near the dead body. Hanuman Singh was done to death in the way leading from village Dhana to Ghadau and thereafter the dead body was dragged up to the place of occurrence. Foot prints of two persons were also seen on the place of occurrence one of which was of shoe (juti) and another was of chappal. After searching the surrounding area near about a tree of Jal there were foot prints and other signs of fight. Thereafter Man Singh went to the police station and lodged first information report Ex. P/1 at 3.15 P.M. that two unknown persons have committed the murder of Hanuman Singh who went in the morning to school in village Ghadau where he was Xth class student. Thereafter Investigating Officer proceeded on the spot and after necessary investigation arrested accused Manoj on 19.12.1994 through memo Ex. P/27. Recovery of satchel and books of deceased as also chappal of deceased, Juti of accused, ashes of clothes of accused himself and blood stained chausangi (weapon of offence) were recovered on 21.12.1994 on the disclosure statement made by the accused and after necessary investigation the accused was framed. P/27. Recovery of satchel and books of deceased as also chappal of deceased, Juti of accused, ashes of clothes of accused himself and blood stained chausangi (weapon of offence) were recovered on 21.12.1994 on the disclosure statement made by the accused and after necessary investigation the accused was framed. In all 23 witnesses on behalf of the prosecution were examined in the trial court and 37 documents were exhibited on behalf of the prosecution and thereafter the trial court has convicted the accused appellant on the basis of extra-judicial confession made by accused to P.W. 11 Ramkaran and P 17 Rameshwarlal which was supported by the recovery of incriminating articles on the basis of disclosure statement made by the accused and other attending circumstances connecting the accused to the crime. 3. Mr. Garg, learned defence counsel submitted before us that there were no eye-witness to the occurrence and that accused Manoj has been framed only on the basis of suspicion because he and the deceased were studying in the same class and both of them played truant on the day of occurrence and did not go to school and that so called recoveries do not connect the accused person to the crime nor the extra judicial confession is sufficient to convict the accused and the chain of circumstances also do not connect the accused with crime. 4. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment and order of the trial court. 5. We have given due consideration to the rival submissions advanced before us and have also goqe through the evidence available on the record. In the present case homicidal death of Manoj (sic Hanuman Singh) is not disputed by the defence counsel and to our mind also it has been proved so by post-mortem report Ex. P/34 proved by P.W. 23 Dr. Subhash Chandra Goyal. In all injuries were found on the dead body by the doctor, most of them were punctured wounds and some were lacerated wounds, incised wounds and contusions. According to the medical jurist PW. 23 Dr. Subhash Chandra Goyal all these injuries were ante mortem in nature and were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death, therefore, there is no doubt about homicidal death of Hanuman Singh. 6. Mr. Garg. According to the medical jurist PW. 23 Dr. Subhash Chandra Goyal all these injuries were ante mortem in nature and were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death, therefore, there is no doubt about homicidal death of Hanuman Singh. 6. Mr. Garg. learned counsel for the appellant vehemently urged before us that none of the circumstances available on record connect the accused appeilant with the commission of offence. There being no eye witness to the occurrence the case hinges on the circumstantial evidence and extra judicial confession. 7. P.W. 1 Man Singh has admitted in his cross examination that the prosecution witnesses were either his family members or closely related to him. Therefore, we have to examine their testimony with care and caution in order to exclude false implication of the accused. We have scrutinised their testimony with utmost care and caution. Once that approach is taken and the court is satisfied that the evidence of such a witness have a ring of truth, their evidence could be relied upon even without corroboration. Ordinarily a close relative would be the last person to save the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. 8. Extra-judicial confession allegedly made by the appellant to P.W. 11 Ram Karan and P.W. 17 Rameshwarlal has been relied upon by the trial court while convicting the accused appellant. The learned defence counsel submitted before us that both these witnesses were close relatives of the deceased and they were not persons of any status nor the accused ever held them in high esteem to inspire confidence in them for getting help in the crime allegedly committed by him. In this respect Sandeep v. State of Haryana, JT 2001 (3) SC 136 , State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony, AIR 1985 SC 48 as also Ramveer & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, 1999 (1) RCC 1 among others can be referred to. In order to appreciate the above contention we have minutely gone through the testimony of these witnesses. 9. P.W. 11 Ramkaran has admitted in cross examination that the deceased was grand son of his elder brother Kishan Lal. Similarly P.W. 17 Rameshwarlal has admitted that the deceased was his nephew. Nowhere it has been disclosed by these witnesses that the accused had or his father ever reposed any confidence in them or else they could be helpful to the accused person. Similarly P.W. 17 Rameshwarlal has admitted that the deceased was his nephew. Nowhere it has been disclosed by these witnesses that the accused had or his father ever reposed any confidence in them or else they could be helpful to the accused person. Admission of guilt by an accused attracts penal consequences and ordinarily no accused can go to the close relative of the deceased to confess the guilt. Even the harden criminals may not exhibit such an abnormal conduct for confessing before the family members of the deceased persons. Our own High Court in Division Bench Judgment in Ramveer's case (supra) has also discarded such confession made to the relative of the deceased person. 10. P.W. 11 Ramkaran deposed that after about 2-3 days of the occurrence Hawa Singh. father of Manoj, brought the accused to him in the house of this witness and there Hawa Singh told that Manoj has committed the murder and help them. Upon this the witness looked towards Manoj who had tears in his eyes and thereafter Manoj took this witness away and confessed that he has done a blunder and committed murder. Upon asking reason of the crime, Manoj told this witness that both of them were studying in Class Xth and one day for taking a rote book Hanuman deceased came to the house of Manoj and saw the accused talking to his sister-in-law (bhabhi), upon which Hanuman told Manoj that he must help him to become friendly with his sister-in-law (bhabhi) else he will tell in village that Hanuman is having illicit relation with his sister-in-law (bhabhi). Thereafter Manoj allegedly confessed before this witness that while going to school in the way he first gave beating to Hanuman and thereafter killed him by inflicting injuries through `chausingi', jeli and thereafter bushirt of the deceased was buried nearabout and his bag and books were taken away by accused and threw away `chausangi' at the site and burnt the clothes worn by accused. Though in court this witness has disclosed the extra-judicial confession in all details yet he neither apprehended the accused then and there nor informed the police immediately thereafter which affects the veracity of this witness. Ordinarily no accused will confess before a close relative of deceased and also not with every minute details. Though in court this witness has disclosed the extra-judicial confession in all details yet he neither apprehended the accused then and there nor informed the police immediately thereafter which affects the veracity of this witness. Ordinarily no accused will confess before a close relative of deceased and also not with every minute details. When the house of this witness was adjoining to the house of deceased and he was also close relative, it was expected of him to have immediately informed father of deceased with regard to extra-judicial confession so made to him. He has neither informed the police nor the father of deceased nor was he a person of status or gained confidence of accused to be helpful to him. Therefore, no implicit reliance can be placed upon his testimony. 11. P.W. 17 Rameshwarlal deposes that he had good relations with the father of accused and about 4-5 days after the occurrence Manoj alongwith his father Hawa Singh came to this witness and both of them disclosed that Manoj has been implicated in crime so help them. This witness states that thereafter Manoj confessed that 10-15 days prior to murder, Hanuman deceased came to the house of Manoj and saw the latter cutting jokes with her sister-in-law (bhabhi). Upon this Hanuman told accused that he was having illicit relation with her sister-in-law (bhabhi), he (deceased) too will like to have illicit relations with her. Thereafter Hawa Singh told this witness that Manoj has killed Hanuman so help them. Thereafter Manoj confessed that while going to school in the field of Jaswant he first gave beating to Hanuman and thereafter took a jelly from adjoining field and killed Hanuman by giving multiple blows. When Hanuman died, he dragged the dead body from the place of occurrence to a nearby tree and came towards the village after taking bag of books of deceased and his chappals. 12. Such type of detailed confessions are ordinarily not made by the accused person and more so to the close relatives of deceased. This witness has exaggerated in the court statement and was confronted with his previous statement Ex. D/5 and there were material omissions affecting his testimony. In the court statement he states that on the day of occurrence Manoj and Hanuman did not go to school which fact was missing in Ex. D/5. Similarly, it was also not mentioned in Ex. This witness has exaggerated in the court statement and was confronted with his previous statement Ex. D/5 and there were material omissions affecting his testimony. In the court statement he states that on the day of occurrence Manoj and Hanuman did not go to school which fact was missing in Ex. D/5. Similarly, it was also not mentioned in Ex. D/5 that 15 days before the occurrence Hanuman deceased came to the house of Manoj where the deceased saw Manoj and his sister-in-law (bhabhi) joking with each other. This witness has made significant improvements in the court statement contrary to police statement Ex. D/5 and being close relative of the deceased his testimony require close scrutiny. In our view both these witnesses are not wholly reliable. Therefore, the extra-judicial confession alleged by the prosecution and relied by the court below is not of sterling worth to base the conviction. 13. So far as absence of accused and the deceased on the day of occurrence from the school is concerned, in this respect P.W. 19 Devendra Kumar Yadav. Head Master of the School has been examined to prove Ex. 1 P/36 and Ex. P/37. the copies of attendance register. This witness has admitted that the original attendance register and the concerned record of the school was not before him at the time of deposition and that he has not marked the attendance on the day of occurrence. He does not remember the name of class teacher who took the attendance of the students on 7.12.1994. Ex. P/36 is prepared by some another persons who has not been examined and on it mark `A' and is allegedly made by this witness in red ink. `A' signifying absence and `L' signifying leave. But nowhere it has been indicated by this witness that he has marked `A' & `L' after seeing original attendance register. Ex. P/36 was prepared on 8.12.1994 and on that day the concerned clerk being absent it could not be ascertained that who were present and who were absent. A note to the above effect is appended at the bottom of Ex. P/36. The prosecution has not produced the original attendance register nor has examined the class teacher who took attendance on 7.12.1994. Sans it, it cannot be held that on that day accused and deceased were absent from the school. A note to the above effect is appended at the bottom of Ex. P/36. The prosecution has not produced the original attendance register nor has examined the class teacher who took attendance on 7.12.1994. Sans it, it cannot be held that on that day accused and deceased were absent from the school. Even assuming otherwise mere absence from the school on the fateful day cannot connect the accused person with the crime. At the most this can be one of the circumstances forming the chain connecting the accused to the crime. 14. The another circumstances relied on by the trial court was that some days earlier to the occurrence quarrel between accused and deceased took place in the class itself. To prove it PW. 6 Surendra has been examined. who is also a first cousin of the deceased. He has deposed that Manoj was in his section `A' and Hanuman was in section `8' and on 7.12.1994 for arithmetic period 10th `A' and 10th `B' both sat together with Ramesh master. This witness and Hanuman were sitting by the side of wall and accused Manoj was sitting ahead of them who was looking backwards time and again which was objected to by Hanuman. upon which Manoj resented and threatened that he will kill Hanuman if he repeated the same. Upon which this witness intervened and separated them. The class teacher has not seen this episode. After the class was over all the students left but Hanuman and Manoj remained behind and had a fight in the way because Hanuman said to Manoj that the sister-in-law (bhabhi) of Manoj was very beautiful and Hanuman will like to talk to her. At this time also this witness intervened and separated Hanuman and Manoj. Thereafter in the evening when this witness went to village he saw police and the dead body of Hanuman. Testimony of this witness is also assailed by the defence counsel and rightly so because had he seen the accused and deceased fighting in the class and outside it and separated them, he must have immediately disclosed so after coming to know that Hanuman has been murdered. Sans it the conduct of this witness is most unnatural and adversely affecting his testimonial value. 15. Sans it the conduct of this witness is most unnatural and adversely affecting his testimonial value. 15. Whether there is any motive or not becomes wholly irrelevant and academic when the evidence of eye witness is credit worthy and is believed by the court. Presence of motive satisfies judicial mind but its absence only demands deep forensic search and cannot undo the effect of evidence. The motives of man are often subjective, submerged and unamenable to easy proof. In the matter at hand motive for committing crime has been alleged but not proved to our satisfaction. The motive of killing as disclosed by P.W. 6 Surendra that deceased had an evil eye on the sister-in-law (bhabhi) of the accused is also not proved because the deceased was in his teens and age of sister-in-law (bhabhi) has not been disclosed nor the factum of having illicit relations of deceased with his sister-in-law (bhabhi) being probed by investigating officer nor proved in the court below. Though motive for committing crime is always not necessary but when motive is alleged by the prosecution then if the same is not proved. it adversely affects the case of the prosecution 16. The third circumstances against the accused was that immediately prior to occurrence he was seen going with deceased to the school. In proof thereof P.W. 9 Prithvi Singh has been examined who saw accused and deceased going together and P.W. 10 Phoolaram is examined to prove that the accused alone was coming back to the village. P.W. 9 Prithvi Singh has been examined to prove the above fact who is also admittedly close relative of the deceased. In the examination in chief Prithvi Singh deposes that his house is on the way leading to village Ghadau and was sitting in front of his house and saw the students going to the school. He also saw Hanuman wearing red bushirt and khakhi pent with the bag of books going towards school. About 20-30 steps behind him Manoj was going empty handed wearing khakhi pent and white bushirt. In the evening when dead body of Hanuman was found in the field about 50 persons of the village went at the site. Thereafter some students from the school came back and told that Hanuman and Manoj did not go to school. Thereafter Manoj was not seen in the village. In the evening when dead body of Hanuman was found in the field about 50 persons of the village went at the site. Thereafter some students from the school came back and told that Hanuman and Manoj did not go to school. Thereafter Manoj was not seen in the village. In the cross examination Prithvi Singh had admitted that he has not disclosed to the police that Hanuman was wearing red bushirt with bag of books and 20-30 steps behind him was going Manoj accused. Therefore, it being an exaggerated version in the court reliance on this witness cannot be 25 placed. 17. Similarly, P.W. 10 Phoolaram though has deposed that on the day of occurrence at about half past 11.00 when he was going towards his filed he saw Mario accused wearing khaki pent and white shirt with `chausangi' (weapon of offence). The bushirt and `chausangi' were smeared with blood. Manoj was also having a satchel in his hand. When this witness asked Manoj why he has not gone to school the latter replied that he had some work at home. The witness further deposes that at that time Manoj was in tension. In the evening this witness came to know that Hanuman has been murdered in the filed of Jaswant Then he told the above story to Balwan P.W. 5 who also told this witness that he has also seen Manoj following Hanuman in the way leading to village Ghadau. Keeping in view that this witness is a close relative of deceased, his testimony has to undergo the scrutiny of care and caution. In the cross examination he has been contradicted by his previous statement Ex. D/4 in which the fact that Balwan has also told him that in the morning latter has also seen Manoj following Hanuman in the way leading to Ghadau, therefore, he is exaggerating the version in the trial court. Had this witness seen Mario with blood stained clothes and blood stained weapon of offence, he should have asked some questions to the accused as to why he was going with blood stained articles. The submissions of Mr. Garg, learned counsel for the appellant, are weighty enough that no accused after committing crime will keep the weapon of offence along with him while coming to the village and also will take bag and books of deceased with him which are not valuable articles. The submissions of Mr. Garg, learned counsel for the appellant, are weighty enough that no accused after committing crime will keep the weapon of offence along with him while coming to the village and also will take bag and books of deceased with him which are not valuable articles. When on the one hand ash of blood stained clothes have been recovered at the instance of the accused, how shall the accused will not burn or dispose of the weapon of offence as also the books and bag of the deceased person. One more anamoly is this that `chausangi' (veapon of offence) has been recovered at the instance of the accused not from his house but in the fields near about the place of occurrence. Therefore, the trial court has been misguided by connecting the accused person with the factum of his last seen with the prosecution witnesses. 18. A foot mould has also been taken from the place of occurrence alleged to be of a right shoe (juti) of the accused person. P.W. 14 Yasin Khan Head Constable deposes that on the request of the Station House Officer, Sidhmukh he went to the place of occurrence on 8.12.1994 where he found covered foot prints and took plaster mould Article-1 of one foot print and prepared memo Ex. P/7 on the spot. He further deposes that on 22.12.1994 on the request of Station House Officer, Sidhmukh he again went 10 to sub-jail Rajgarh where Sub-Divisional Magistrate asked the accused person for a walk and there he took another plaster mould Article-S/1 and prepared memo Ex. P/23. No where it has been indicated that the plaster mould taken from the site was sealed and deposited in the malkhana nor any impression of seal was found on memo Ex. P/7. Even if Article-S/1, foot mould, taken in presence of Sub-Divisional Magistrate through Ex. P/23 may have been sealed that by itself will not connect the accused to the crime unless and until foot mould taken from the site was seized and sealed at the spot itself. The report of finger print bureau Ex. P/33 in this regard looses all importance and this circumstance is also wrongly relied upon by the trial court. 19. P/23 may have been sealed that by itself will not connect the accused to the crime unless and until foot mould taken from the site was seized and sealed at the spot itself. The report of finger print bureau Ex. P/33 in this regard looses all importance and this circumstance is also wrongly relied upon by the trial court. 19. The last circumstance is the recovery of bag with books of the deceased, chappal of deceased, shoe (juti) of accused, burnt ash of clothes of accused and blood stained `chausangi (weapon of offence). P.W. 2 Om Prakash and P.W. 3 Dharampal were the recovery witnesses in addition to P.W. 18 Antar Singh investigating Officer. Satchel and books of deceased recovered on the basis of disclosure statement Ex. P/29 and seizure memo Ex. P/9. Similarly, ash of burnt cloth of the accused were recovered on the basis of discovery statement Ex. P/30 through seizure memo Ex. P/10. Blood stained `chausangi' (weapon of offence) was recovered on the basis of disclosure statement Ex. P/31 through seizure memo Ex. P/11. Similarly shoe (juti) of accused was recovered on the basis of disclosure statement Ex. P/28 through seizure memo Ex. P/8. Apart from the fact that recovery witness P.W. 2 Om Prakash and P.W. 3 Dharampal were closely related to the deceased there were other material contradictions interse in their statements. 20. According to P.W. 18 Antar Singh satchel and books were recovered to begun with. thereafter shoe (juti) of the accused was recovered and after that ash of burnt cloth of accused was recovered and lastly jelly (weapon of offence) was recovered. But according to P.W. 2 Om Prakash to begun with, accused got recovered juti of black colour thereafter satchel alongwith books was got recovered in which there were sleepers of deceased. Thereafter ash of burnt clothes was got recovered. All these articles were got recovered from the residential house of the accused and lastly `chausangi' jelly (weapon of offence) was got recovered towards south of village Dhana from the stored fodder. 21. P.W. 3 Dharampal did not corroborate the version of either P.W. 2 Om Prakash or P.W. 18 Antar Singh. According to him the police took this person and Om Prakash 100 steps south from the way leading to village and from a heap of fodder Manoj accused got recovered one `chausangi' whose two spokes were bent. 21. P.W. 3 Dharampal did not corroborate the version of either P.W. 2 Om Prakash or P.W. 18 Antar Singh. According to him the police took this person and Om Prakash 100 steps south from the way leading to village and from a heap of fodder Manoj accused got recovered one `chausangi' whose two spokes were bent. Thereafter police took all of us to the house of accused from where accused got recovered bag alongwith books and sleepers of the deceased. After that shoe (juti) was got recovered. Thereafter ash of the burnt cloth was recovered. Seizure memos of all these articles were prepared then and there. Though Antar Singh PW. 18 investigating Officer and PW-2 Om Prakash have deposed that as soon the article was recovered it was seized and sealed and thereafter another article was got recovered, whereas, according to P.W. 3 Dharampal, Manoj got ail these articles recovered and thereafter seizure memos were prepared. Jelly chausangi (weapon of offence) was also taken to the house of accused from the place of occurrence. The above contradictions in the statements of these witnesses keeping in view their close relationship with the accused affects adversely their testimonial value. 22. All these articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination through Ramniwas, Foot Constable, P.W. 13 who does not depose that he has taken any memo containing seal impression to the Forensic Science Laboratory nor malkhana incharge P.W. 16 Richhapal Singh deposes so. Even Antar Singh PW. 18 Investigating Officer has also not deposed that any memo of seal impression was separately prepared or atleast copy of memos containing seal impression were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory to compare the same with the seals found on the articles. Therefore, report Ex. P/32 received from Forensic Science Laboratory looses its importance. 23. It is not appealing to reasons that what for the accused will carry the weapon of offence after the occurrence when he was intelligent enough to have burnt his clothes why shall he has not burnt jelly, the weapon of offence, as also other articles connecting him to the crime. It is also not convincing that what for the accused will carry the bag and books of the deceased from the place of occurrence when he has not camouflaged the dead body which Omprakash and Prabhu Singh have seen while riding the tractor. 24. It is also not convincing that what for the accused will carry the bag and books of the deceased from the place of occurrence when he has not camouflaged the dead body which Omprakash and Prabhu Singh have seen while riding the tractor. 24. A red bushirt was recovered from the place of occurrence and found to be blood stained by the serologist yet it cannot connect the accused with the crime. Firstly, because when accused was wise enough to burn his clothes why shall not he burn the red bushirt of the deceased also. The blood group found on the articles by the serologist is not of any significance when the blood group of deceased was not taken and sent for examination. `B' group blood stains were found on these articles which was a common group found in sundry persons, therefore, this circumstance is also not connecting the accused with crime. 25. Jaswant Singh and Prabhu Singh have not been examined by the prosecution though named in the first information report. Prabhu Singh though came on the tractor and disclosed for the first time that a dead body of a boy is lying in the filed of Jaswant Singh, yet he has not been examined by the prosecution which affects their case adversely. Similarly, test identification parade of the articles was conducted by P.W. 21 Shyambihari Mathur Tehsildar who deposes that identification of bag and books of deceased was done by Man Singh only whereas Ex. P/24 memo discloses that identification of articles was done by Kaniram, father of deceased, who has not been examined in the trial court. Even assuming that the bag and books of deceased were recovered, that by itself will not connect the accused with the crime. 26. Lastly autopsy Ex. P/34 of the dead body was conducted by P.W. 23 Dr. Subhash Chandra Goyal who found 35 injuries on the dead body. All of them were ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death but majority of these injuries were punctured wounds and some of them were contusions and abrasions. In the post-mortem report Ex. P/34 injuries Nos. 33 and 34 are incised wounds with irregular margins. According to Dr. Goyal the possibility of these injuries causing by sharp weapon is on the higher side. In the post-mortem report Ex. P/34 injuries Nos. 33 and 34 are incised wounds with irregular margins. According to Dr. Goyal the possibility of these injuries causing by sharp weapon is on the higher side. It was the duty of the trial court to have shown the weapon of offence to doctor when he was deposing in the court in order to ascertain whether the injuries found on the dead body could be caused by such a weapon. Sans it, it cannot be said that punctured wound and incised wounds can be caused by a jelly which is meant for collecting fodder. 27. Though all these infirmities in the prosecution were glaring yet escaped notice of learned trial court resulting into the conviction of the accused. When in the first information report Ex. P/1 it has been mentioned that the foot prints of two persons were found on the place of occurrence and two unknown persons have murdered Hanuman and from 7.12.1994 i.e the day of occurrence to 19.12.1994 when Manoj was arrested the 15 prosecution was under suspicion with regard to perpetrator of crime. The investigation was done first by Nathu Singh, ASI P.W. 15. thereafter by Station House Officer Bhanwarlal P.W. 22 and lastly by Antar Singh P.W. 18. Till Antar Singh came into scene perpetrator of the crime was unknown. Though he took the investigation on 10.12.1994 yet he too was not able to catch hold of the accused till 19.12 1994. Had accused made any extra judicial confession before Rameshwarlal PW. 17 and Ramkaran P.W. 11 2-3 days after the occurrence, why shall they have not disclosed this fact to the police or to the father of deceased immediately thereafter. Being close relative of the deceased they were expected to disclose the name of the accused at the earliest opportunity to the police. Their not disclosing the matter to the above persons leads to the conclusion that no extra judicial confession was made before them. Both these persons are neither having any status in the society nor were in a position to help the accused to save him from the gallows. Thereafter there was no purpose to confess guilt before them. Their not disclosing the matter to the above persons leads to the conclusion that no extra judicial confession was made before them. Both these persons are neither having any status in the society nor were in a position to help the accused to save him from the gallows. Thereafter there was no purpose to confess guilt before them. The chain of circumstances are neither complete nor proved or of such a character that the same is wholly inconsistent with innocence of the accused and is consistent with innocence of the accused and is consistent only with his guilty. The incriminating circumstances proved in this case are not such which lead only to a hypothesis of guilt and reasonably exclude every possibility of innocence of the accused. All these infirmities makes the prosecution case doubtful and the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. 28. For all these reasons, we accept this appeal, set aside the judgment and conviction passed by the trial court and acquit the accused. The accused person is in custody, he be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.Appeal allowed. *******