Judgment K. C. SHARMA, J. ( 1 ) ACCUSED Gopi Chand and Sarjeet were convicted under Sections 302 and 201. IPC and were sentenced to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 4 months rigorous imprisonment on first count, imprisonment for 3 years and- a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months rigorous imprisonment on the second count by the Additional Sessions Judge. Behror District. Alwar Accused Gopi Chand was further convicted under Section 404. IPC and was sentenced to undergo 1 yearts rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 200/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month imprisonment. ( 2 ) AT the outset it must be, stated that counsel for the appellants has submitted an application to the effect that appellant Gopi Chand was on bail and he has been murdered. He has submitted a photostat copy of FIR No. 83/2000 dated 21-5-2000 to show that he along with his five family members has been murdered. ( 3 ) IN view of the above and since no near relative of appellant Gopi has moved any application within 30 days of his death for leave to continue the appeal the appeal against Gopi Chand stands abated. ( 4 ) BRIEFLY stated, the prosecution case is that on 21-7-1991 PW. 23-Raj Singh lodged a written report Ex. P. 16 at Police Station. Mandhan alleging therein that his mother, accused Sarjeet and his brother Hawa Singh had gone to Behror for the purpose of seeing the record of their land in village, Hudia-Kalan. His mother returned home in the evening. When he asked his mother as to where was Hawa Singh, she informed that Hawa Singh has gone to Village, Hudia with Sarj eet. When Hawa Singh did not turn up for 2-3 days. Raj Singh alongwith his mother went, to accused Sarjeet at village, Hudia and on enquiry from Sarjeet, he informed that Hawa Singh had left for home on that very evening. They went on searching for Hawa Singh till date, but he could not be traced. When Hawa Singh did not turn up for 2-3 days. Raj Singh alongwith his mother went, to accused Sarjeet at village, Hudia and on enquiry from Sarjeet, he informed that Hawa Singh had left for home on that very evening. They went on searching for Hawa Singh till date, but he could not be traced. Today, when the police showed him a dead body at the police station, he identified, the body to be that of his brother Hawa Singh on the basis of clothes on the dead body, who had gone with Sarjeet about 4-5 months earlier. He then alleged that Sarjeet killed his brother and thrown his body into the well, fie disclosed that accused Sarjeet has illicit relation with his mother Smt. Ramgiri. He and his younger brother were objecting to it and for this reason, accused Sarjeet has killed his brother and thrown his body into the well. ( 5 ) ON the aforesaid report Ex. P. 26, the police, registered a case vide F. I. R. No. 78/91, Ex. P. 27 and proceeded with investigation. ( 6 ) THE police on the basis of written information Ex. P. 13 dated 9-7-199 1 submitted by one Ramji lal PW 19 registered FIR No. 4/91 under Sec. 174, Cr. P. C. and prepared inquest report EX. P. 3 of the recovery of skeleton in the presence of Han Singh, Subey Singh, Murari Lal. Durga Prasad and ramji Lal. Thereafter, the police prepared site plan Ex. P. 9 of the place of incident in FIR No. 4/91. ( 7 ) THE police registered FIR No. 74/91 on the basis of written report lodged by PW 2 Sher Singh in respect of murder of his brother Amar Singh. During the course of investigation in that case, Police inspected the place of occurrence and prepared site plan, Ex. P. 8. Accused Sarjeet and Gopi were arrested on 17/7/199 1 and 24/7/1991 respectively. Accused Sarjeet gave information, Ex. P. 48 to the Investigating Officer on 17/7/1991 to the effect that he would point out the place where he and Chhotey Lal administered liquor to Amar Singh and the well where they threw his dead body and skull of dead body is lying in the well. Consequent to this information, skull was recovered on 17/7/1991 from - the well known as Harmangla well. Site Plan Ex. Consequent to this information, skull was recovered on 17/7/1991 from - the well known as Harmangla well. Site Plan Ex. P. 9 was also prepared at the instance of Sarjeet. Blood smeared soil and plain soil was also taken in possession from the well on 17/7/1991 vide Ex. P. 10 and Ex. P. 50 respectively. PW-22 Raghuveer Photographer took the photographs of skeleton, the negatives of which are Ex. P. 14, 16, 18, 20 22 and 24 and enlarged photographs are Ex. P. 15, 17, 19, 21, 23 and 25. All these documents are enclosed with the record of the case. ( 8 ) LATER, the Police registered a case vide FIR No. 78/91, Ex. P. 27 on the basis of the written report lodged by Raj Singh on 21/7/1991 in respect of murder of his brother Hawa Singh. During investigation of this case, the Investigating Officer arrested accused Sarjeet and Gopi on 30/7/1991 vide arrest memos Ex. P. 11 and Ex. P. 12 respectively. Prior to this, the Investigating Officer, on 24/7/1991, took in possession one Quartz wrist watch OMAX from accused Gopi, which he was having on the wrist of his right hand. Accused Sarjeet and Gopi gave information under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act for the recovery of Hockey and Woolen gloves respectively on 30-7-1991 vide information Memos Ex. P. 51 and Ex. P. 52 and in persuance of their information, a hockey and woolen gloves were recovered vide Memos Ex. P. 11 and Ex. P. 4. The site plan Ex. P. 5 for recovery of Hockey and woolen gloves was also prepared. Accused Gopi also gave information on 30-7-1991 to the Investigating Officer that he would point out the place where Hawa Singh was murdered and the well in which his dead body was thrown. Consequent, to this information Ex. P. 6 site plan was prepared. Ex. P. 7 site plan was also prepared at the instance of accused Sarjeet. Raj Singh produced one photograph of accused Gopi and Hawa Singh, Ex. P. 30. One Pass Book, Ex. P. 29 and one Baniyan Ex. P. 28 were also taken in possession. The X-ray report and X-ray plates of skeleton and post mortem report of skeleton are on record as Exhibit Ex. P. 31. Ex. P. 32 to 41 and Ex. P. 42. respectively. P. 30. One Pass Book, Ex. P. 29 and one Baniyan Ex. P. 28 were also taken in possession. The X-ray report and X-ray plates of skeleton and post mortem report of skeleton are on record as Exhibit Ex. P. 31. Ex. P. 32 to 41 and Ex. P. 42. respectively. The recovered articles and cloths found on the skeleton were got identified by Kumari Sheela and Kumari Rajbala vide Ex. P. 45. The statements of witnesses were also recorded by the Police during investigation. ( 9 ) AFTER completion of investigation, police submitted a chargesheet against the accused appellants under Sections 302, 201 and 404, IPC in the Court of Judicial Magistrate. Behror, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions. ( 10 ) THE case came to be tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Behror. The trial Court framed charges against the accused appellants under Sections 302, 201 and 404. , IPC. The accused appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed trial, During trial, the prosecution in support of its case, examined as many as 35 witnesses and exhibited various documents. Thereafter, the accused appellants were examined under Section 313, Cr. P. C. The accused appellants did not examine any witness in their defence. ( 11 ) AFTER conclusion of trial, hearing counsel for the accused and the public prosecutor and on the basis of evidence on record, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the accused appellants as aforementioned. Aggrieved against their conviction the accused appellants have taken this appeal. ( 12 ) WE have heard Mr. Pushpendra Pal Singh assisted by Mr. J. K. Yogi and Mr. Sushil Sharma, counsel for the accused appellants and Mr. S. C. Purohit, Public Prosecutor and perused the judgment under challenge and the record of the case. ( 13 ) ADMITTEDLY, there is no direct evidence. The prosecution case rests squarely on the circumstantial evidence. For ease and convenience the circumstantial evidence may be categorized in the following terms: (1) Recovery of human skeleton from a well known as harmangla well. The human skeleton was recovered consequent to the report Ex. P. 13 submitted by PW. 9 Ramji Lal. (2) The human skeleton recovered was identified to be that of Hawa Singh by PW. 23 Raj Singh on the basis of the clothes found on the skeleton. (3) Woolen gloves were recovered vide Ex. The human skeleton was recovered consequent to the report Ex. P. 13 submitted by PW. 9 Ramji Lal. (2) The human skeleton recovered was identified to be that of Hawa Singh by PW. 23 Raj Singh on the basis of the clothes found on the skeleton. (3) Woolen gloves were recovered vide Ex. P. 4 at the instance and information Ex. P. 52 of Gopi Chand from his house. (4) A hockey was recovered vide Ex. P. 11 on 30-7-1991 at the instance and information Ex. P. 51 of accused Sarjeet. (5) The deceased Hawa Singh was last seen in the company of accused Sarjeet by PW 12 Kumari Rajbala. PW 34 Kumari Sheela both sisters of deceased Hawa Singh and PW 23 Raj Singh, elder brother of deceased. PW 15 Heera Lal had last seen Hawa Singh in the company of accused Gopi Chand. (6) Information as to the recovery of skull was furnished by accused Sarjeet on 17-7-1991, whereas, the skull had already been recovered six days prior to the information i. e. on 11-7- 199 1. (7) Smt. Ramgiri, mother of deceased had illicit relations with accused Sarjeet. ( 14 ) IN assailing the conviction the first contention raised by the learned counsel for the accused appellants is that there is no evidence to show that the skeleton found from the well was that of deceased Hawa Singh. Referring to the statements of some witnesses, the learned counsel contended that the prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the recovered skeleton was that of deceased Hawa Singh for whose murder the accused appellants are charged. The next contention raised by the counsel is that the various sets of circumstantial evidence do not conclusively point out that Hawa Singh was done to death by the accused appellants. ( 15 ) ON the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has supported the findings of guilt against the accused appellants arrived at by the learned trial court and has contended that the impugned judgment is based on proper appreciation of evidence and the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants deserve to be maintained. ( 16 ) TO deal with the first contention relating to the recovery of corpus delicti it must be observed that it is well settled that in order to establish the charge of murder, the corpus delicti must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. ( 16 ) TO deal with the first contention relating to the recovery of corpus delicti it must be observed that it is well settled that in order to establish the charge of murder, the corpus delicti must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. A perusal of inquest report Ex. P. 3 shows that the skeleton was recovered on 10-7-1991 from a well known as Harmangla well on the basis of report Ex. P. 13 lodged by one Ramji Lal. PW. 19. The recovery was made in the presence of Murarilal. Han Singh, PW 2 Subey Singh, PW 3 Sher Singh, PW 4 Krishna Kumar, PW 5 Sprajbhan, PW 6 Han Singh, PW 7 Lachhi Ram, PW 8 Chandrabhan, PW 9 Ramji Lal, PW 13 Durga Prasad. PW 14 Balbir, PW 18 Chandgi Ram and PW 20 Abhay Singh. PW 21 Kalu Ram. PW 28 Banshidhar Verma. ( 17 ) PW. 2 Subey Singh and PW. 6 Han Singh have not identified the skeleton. PW. 9 Ramji Lal stated that the dead body of Amar Singh was taken out of the well. PW. 13 Durga Prasad has stated about the recovery of skull and that too of Amar Singh father of deceased Hawa Singh, who was also missing since long. Thus, this witness has also not identified the skeleton to be that of Hawa Singh. Murarilal has not been examined. ( 18 ) PW 7 Lachhi Ram has stated that the recovered skeleton was without head. He further stated that the police again Came to him and took out skull from the well. Thereafter the police took out the dead body of Amar Singh. In cross- examination, he deposed that he did not identify the skeleton of son of Amar Singh. ( 19 ) PW 8 Chandrabhan another witness to the recovery has stated that the Police came at about 9-10 AM on 10/7/1991 and got the dead body taken out. The dead body had pants and shirt on it. The head was not attached to the body. He further stated that the police came again on the next day. Accused Sarjeet was with the Police. Police took out the skull of the dead body from the well. In cross- examination, this witness has stated that he does not know the date of taking out the skull. ( 20 ) PW 9 is a witness to the Panchayatnama. He further stated that the police came again on the next day. Accused Sarjeet was with the Police. Police took out the skull of the dead body from the well. In cross- examination, this witness has stated that he does not know the date of taking out the skull. ( 20 ) PW 9 is a witness to the Panchayatnama. According to him, Amar Singh was lying dead and his dead body was tied in a cloth (potali ). ( 21 ) PW 14 Balbir whose statement was recorded on 28-8-1993 has stated that he had lodged a report regarding missing of his brother Amar Singh at Police Station Narnaul. He then stated that Police got the dead body taken out. The dead body had no neck when the police took out the dead body. He stated that the recovered body was not that of his brother Amar Singh as his brother used to wear kurta-payjama. ( 22 ) PW 18 Chandgi Ram has only stated that the dead body was without head and he did not identify the dead body. In cross-examination he stated that the dead body was taken out only by Abhay Singh and Kalu Ram. ( 23 ) PW 19 Abhay Singh has stated that he and Kalu Ram step down into the well, put the dead body on the cot (Khatola) and thereafter the villagers pulled out the skeleton. He further stated that the skeleton had a trouser of brown colour (Saletia colour) and a bushirt (chekdar ). On being asked from the villagers to identify the body, Sher Singh stated that the dead body was not that of his brother. ( 24 ) PW 21 Kalu Ram has stated in his statement that it was a complete body wearing bushirt, pant-payjama and a jarsi on the bushirt. In cross- examination, he stated the colours of the cloth as white bushirt, brown (matiyali) coloured pants and a jarsi of green colour. He has not stated anything as to the identification of the dead body. ( 25 ) THE last witness to the recovery of skeleton is PW 28 Bashidhar Verma, who at the relevant time was posted as SHO, Sahjahanpur. He got the skeleton taken out of the well from the villagers present there, prepared Panchayatnama, Ex. P. 3 and took away the skeleton to Police Station Mandhan. ( 25 ) THE last witness to the recovery of skeleton is PW 28 Bashidhar Verma, who at the relevant time was posted as SHO, Sahjahanpur. He got the skeleton taken out of the well from the villagers present there, prepared Panchayatnama, Ex. P. 3 and took away the skeleton to Police Station Mandhan. ( 26 ) ON a minute look at the evidence discussed above, we have arrived at a conclusion that none of the witnesses present at the time of recovery of skeleton without head on 10-7 -1991 has identified the skeleton. PW 3 Sher Singh, brother of Amar Singh has categorically stated that the recovered skeleton was not that of his brother Amar Singh because his brother Amar Singh was wearing payjama and kurta at the time of his missing. ( 27 ) APART from the aforesaid witnesses, PW. 23 Raj Singh has stated that the dead body was shown to him in Mandhan Police Station and he identified the body to be that of his brother on the basis of the clothes, which were on the dead body. PW. 12 Ku. Rajbala, daughter has rightly identified the clothes Uersi, trouser, shirt, gloves, baniyan and under-wear, articles 5 to 10 respectively) to be that of his brother deceased Hawa Singh which he was wearing at the time of his missing. PW. 34 Ku. Sheela has also identified the aforesaid articles except watch as belonging to his brother deceased Hawa Singh. The Medical Board consisting of PW. 25 Dr. K. C. Sharma; P. W. 26 Dr. Surendra Jam and PW 32 Dr. Surendra Kumar Sharma, who conducted autopsy were collectively of the opinion that the said skeleton was a human skeleton and was of a male of about 16-17 years of age. They have also certified that the duration of death was more than 4 months and the cause of death was head injury. They have opined that all the corpse of skeleton were belonging to only one person. PW 24 Dr. M. K. Singh. Radiologist in Ex. P. 31 has opined the age to be 17 years and seems to be of a male. Thus in our opinion the testimony of PW. 12 Rajbala. PW. 23 Raj Singh and PW. 34 Ku. Sheela if scrutinized in the light of the medical evidence as discussed above is sufficient to prove the death of. Hawa Singh. Radiologist in Ex. P. 31 has opined the age to be 17 years and seems to be of a male. Thus in our opinion the testimony of PW. 12 Rajbala. PW. 23 Raj Singh and PW. 34 Ku. Sheela if scrutinized in the light of the medical evidence as discussed above is sufficient to prove the death of. Hawa Singh. The contention of the counsel for the appellants, therefore, fails. We hold that the prosecution has established the corpse delicti beyond reasonable doubts. ( 28 ) NOW, we come to the recovery of gloves on the information and at the instance of accused Gopi Chand and the recovery of hockey on the information and at the instance of accused Sarjeet. PW. 12 Ku. Rajbala and PW. 34 Ku. Sheela both sisters of deceased Hawa Singh have stated that her brother Hawa Singh had wrist watch on his hand and was wearing gloves before he disappeared. Ex. P. 4 is the memo by which gloves were recovered. This recovery was made on 31-7-1991 in pursuance of Ex. P. 52, the information of accused Gopi, in the presence of PW. 11 Jaswant Singh and PW. 2 Subey Singh, Subey Singh PW. 2 has only deposed in his cross-examination that the police had brought hockey and gloves from inside the room. Jaswant Singh PW. 11 has not stated anything about the recovery of gloves. ( 29 ) THE hockey was recovered in pursuance of the information Ex. P. 51 dated 30-7-199 1 furnished by accused Sarjeet. The recovery was made vide memo Ex. P. 11 from the house of accused Sarjeet in the presence of PW. 2 Subey Singh and PW. 11 Jaswant Singh. Subey Singh PW. 2 has in his cross-examination merely deposed that police had brought hockey and gloves from inside the room. He has not at all stated whether the hockey had blood stains or not. Likewise. PW. 11 Jaswant Singh has categorically stated in his cross-examination that there were no marks of blood stains on the hockey, PW. 23 Raj Singh elder brother of deceased Hawa Singh has stated in his cross-examination that he had brought gloves. baniyan and wool from Huda and had handed over the same to the police. Likewise. PW. 11 Jaswant Singh has categorically stated in his cross-examination that there were no marks of blood stains on the hockey, PW. 23 Raj Singh elder brother of deceased Hawa Singh has stated in his cross-examination that he had brought gloves. baniyan and wool from Huda and had handed over the same to the police. ( 30 ) THERE is yet another recovery of a wristwatch tied on the left hand of accused Gopi Chand in the presence of Babu Lal and Pawan Kumar. Babu Lal has passed away and therefore, he could not be examined. PW 27 Pawan Kumar has stated in his statement that it was not the same watch, which Gopi had handed over to the Police PW 34 Kumari Sheela, sister of deceased Hawa Singh has also not supported the recovery of wrist watch. She has categorically stated that the recovered watch was not the same, which her brother had on his hand. Further, it appears to be unnatural that one would use the wrist, watch of a person, to whom he has killed. Thus, the recovery of wrist, watch is of no consequence. ( 31 ) FROM the aforesaid discussion about the information having been furnished by the accused and the discovery and seizure consequent thereto, we are of the view that the information and the discovery of subsequent fact, in the facts and circumstances of the case is inadmissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act because apparently fault is found with regard to the discovery and seizure of the incriminating articles. ( 32 ) THUS on a careful scrutiny of the evidence as to the recovery of gloves, hockey and a wrist watch as discussed above, if read with the evidence of PW. 23 Raj Singh and PW 34 Sheela, who are none others but the elder brother and sister of deceased Hawa Singh, we are of the firm view that the recovery of the aforesaid articles at the instance and in consequence of the information furnished by the accused appellants, thus, affords no incriminating evidence nor any link in the chain of circumstantial evidence and it appears that the aforesaid articles have been collected from the witnesses solely with a view to implicate the accused appellants with the commission of crime. ( 33 ) THE last and most important set of evidence relied upon by the prosecution against the appellants is that deceased Hawa Singh was last seen in the company of accused Sarjeet and Gopi Chand. The prosecution has heavily relied upon the evidence of PW 12 Kumari Rajbala, PW 34 Kumari Sheela, PW. 23 Raj Singh and PW. 15 Heera Lal. We may point out that it was the testimony of these witnesses, which weighed heavily with the court below in convicting the appellants, naturally, therefore, their testimony plays a vital role. ( 34 ) PW. 12 Kumari Rajbala is a girl of about 13 years. The trial Court after being fully satisfied that she is competent enough to give evidence, her statement was recorded. She has stated that Sarjeet, his mother Ramgiri and Hawa Singh had gone to Behror about 2-3 years back. Her mother returned Hudia in the evening. Sarjeet and her brother Hawa Singh did not turn up. She further stated that her brother Hawa Singh was wearing a white and brown coloured shirt, trouser of brown colour sweater and gloves of light blue colour (Kabutari colour ). A wrist, watch was also tried on his hand. PW 34 Kumari Sheela another sister of deceased has supported the statement of her sister and deposed similar to what has been stated by her sister. ( 35 ) P. W. 23 Raj Singh who lodged the first information report has stated in his statement only to the extent that his mother and brother Hawa Singh along with Sarjeet had gone to Behror for seeing the record relating to the land in village Hudia-Kalan. P. W. 15 Hiralal is the another witness to last seen, whose statement was recorded on 28-3-1993. He has stated that he had gone to attend the marriage of his cousin sister. While he along with Chandrabhan was taking tea at the Hotel of one Bhagwan Singh at about 6. 00 PM, a bus came from the side of Kund and he saw Hawa Singh stepping down from the said bus. Hawa Singh came to him and on asking he informed that he was going to village Kanina but since there was no conveyance available, therefore he will stay with Sarjeet and Gopi. He further stated that Gopi Ram was standing there with a Cycle. Hawa Singh came to him and on asking he informed that he was going to village Kanina but since there was no conveyance available, therefore he will stay with Sarjeet and Gopi. He further stated that Gopi Ram was standing there with a Cycle. He sat on the cycle and left for Hudia-Kalan with Gopi and since then he has not seen Hawa Singh in the village. P. W. 8 Chandrabhan has not stated anything about seeing Hawa Singh while he was taking tea with PW 15 Hiralal. ( 36 ) AS stated above, the statement of PW 15 Hira Lal was recorded in 1993, wherein he has stated about the incident having then place about 3-4 years back whereas the report. Ex. P. 26 about the missing of Hawa Singh, which was lodged by his brother Raj Singh in July. 1991 shows that Hawa Singh had disappeared about 45 months back. What PW 3 Raj Singh and his two sisters PW 12 Rajbala and PW 34 Sheela have stated that their mother, brother Hawa Singh and accused Sarjeet had left for Behror. Thus, admittedly all these three material witnesses, who are none others but the brother and sisters of deceased Hawa Singh have stated only about leaving the place by his mother and Hawa Singh along with Sarjeet for Behror and therefore, it cannot at all be said that Hawa Singh was last seen in the company of accused Sarjeet. PW 1 Mst. Ramgiri, mother of Hawa Singh has been declared hostile, and has not at all supported even the statements of his son and daughters about her going to Behror with Hawa Singh and Sarjeet. On the contrary. PW 15 Hiralal speaks some different story. He has stated that Hawa Singh had gone with Gopi Chand and not with Sarjeet. On analysing the above evidence, we are of the firm view that the witnesses to the last seen story of the prosecution are not worthy of credence and unreliable. Thus, the evidence of last seen is of no consequence. ( 37 ) IT appears to be most unnatural that none of the family members of Hawa Singh have considered it proper to lodge a report to the Police about his missing since long and to trace him out, whereas, all were aware of his missing. Thus, the evidence of last seen is of no consequence. ( 37 ) IT appears to be most unnatural that none of the family members of Hawa Singh have considered it proper to lodge a report to the Police about his missing since long and to trace him out, whereas, all were aware of his missing. ( 38 ) SO far as the last circumstance about the illicit relations between Mst. Ramgiri and accused Sarjeet are concerned, suffice it to say that Ramgiri herself has not stated anything about her relations with accused Sarjeet. PW 28 Raj Singh son of Ramgiri does not have personal knowledge. He stated that his brother Hawa Singh was aware of there being illicit relations between his mother and accused Sarjeet. None other witness has stated about the illicit relations of Ramgiri with accused Sarjeet. Therefore, this circumstance also is of no consequence. ( 39 ) THUS considered, we find that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove any of the circumstances except the corpus delicti, against the accused appellants and the chain of circumstances was broken to the commission of the alleged crime as the prosecution has failed to prove as a primary fact all the circumstances stated hereinabove. Much-less beyond all reasonable doubt bringing home the guilt to the accused and to prove that the accused appellants had committed the murder of Hawa Singh. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt. ( 40 ) TO part with, we must observe that the investigation in the case is absolutely tainted one and the investigating agency has tried to implicate the accused appellants with the murder of Hawa Singh on the basis of investigation conducted in the case arising out of the FIR No 74/91 relating to the alleged murder of Amar Singh, father of Hawa Singh. The circumstances showing lapses on the part of investigating agency while conducting investigation in the case in hand are abvious and the same need to be taken note of. ( 41 ) FIRSTLY, PW 19 Ramji Lal submitted a report, on the basis of which FIR under Section 174 was registered on 9-7-1991. On 10-7-1991 the skeleton without head was recovered on 10-7-1991. Accused Sarjeet was arrested on 17-7-1991 on the basis of report lodged by PW 2 Sher Singh in FIR No. 74/91. Thereafter, he furnished information Ex. ( 41 ) FIRSTLY, PW 19 Ramji Lal submitted a report, on the basis of which FIR under Section 174 was registered on 9-7-1991. On 10-7-1991 the skeleton without head was recovered on 10-7-1991. Accused Sarjeet was arrested on 17-7-1991 on the basis of report lodged by PW 2 Sher Singh in FIR No. 74/91. Thereafter, he furnished information Ex. P. 48 on 17-7-1991, according to which accused Sarjeet informed the Police that he can show the place where he and Chhotey Lal administered liquor to deceased Amar Singh and the place where he threw the dead body. Ex. P. 49 prepared in the presence of Chailu Ram and Han Singh is the memo, which shows that skull recovered was of the body of Amar Singh. ( 42 ) THUS, admittedly it was on the report of alleged murder of Amar Singh and the investigation too was in progress in that case. The information by accused Sarjeet, was also in that case. On the contrary, on 10-7-1991 Sher Singh had already stated that the recovered skull was not that of his brother Amar Singh, but the Police recovered the skull presuming it to be of Amar Singh. ( 43 ) SECONDLY, PW Han Singh has not stated anything about the recovery of skull. ( 44 ) THIRDLY, the dead body was taken out of the well on 10-7-199 1 in the presence of Lachhi Ram. PW 7. Thereafter, the police took Sarjeet to the well on the next day i. e. on 117 -1991 and took out the skull. ( 45 ) FOURTHLY, information in the instant case was furnished by accused appellant Sarjeet on 17-7-1991, whereas the skull had already been recovered on 11-7-1991 vide recovery memo Ex. P. 49 in the presence of Chailu Ram and Hart Singh, PW 10 and PW 6 respectively. PW 10 Chailu Ram has stated about recovery of skull without hair and skin, whereas. PW 6 Han Singh has categorically deposed that he does not know as to how Amar Singh died. His body was taken out of Harmangla well. He then stated that he could not identify the skeleton as that of Amar Singh. ( 46 ) FURTHER PW 7 Lachhi Ram has stated that he was present at the well and he had seen the skeleton, which was without head. His body was taken out of Harmangla well. He then stated that he could not identify the skeleton as that of Amar Singh. ( 46 ) FURTHER PW 7 Lachhi Ram has stated that he was present at the well and he had seen the skeleton, which was without head. On the second day, Police took Sarjeet to the well and took out the skull from the well. He then stated that after taking out the skull, police took out the dead body of Amar Sihgh. Likewise, PW 8 Chandrabhan was also present at the time of recovery of dead body. He has stated that the police got recovered the dead body on 10-7-1991 at about 9-10 AM in his presence. The dead body had a trouser and bushirt on it and it was without head. He further stated that the police again came on the next day. Accused Sarjeet was also with the police and the police took out the skull from the well. Thus, it is fully established that a dead body was recovered on 10-7-199 1 and on the next day i. e. on 11-7-1991 skull was recovered from the well. That apart, it is also surprising to note that when the information was furnished only on 17-7-1991, as to how the skull had been recovered on 11-7-1991 i. e. 6 days prior to the information and as how the skull could not be recovered on 10-7-1991 itself from the same well from where a dead body was recovered. ( 47 ) THE result of the above discussion is that the appeal must succeed and is accordingly allowed. The conviction and sentence of accused appellant Sarjeet under Sections 302 and 201, IPC are setaside and he is acquitted of the offences charged with. He is in jail. He be released forthwith; if not required in any, other case. ( 48 ) THE appeal as against Gopi Chand stands abated since he has expired during the pendency of this appeal. Appeal allowed.