Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 12 (HP)

Parkash Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2002-01-08

KULDIP CHAND SOOD, LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA

body2002
JUDGMENT Kuldip Chand Sood, J. 1. This jail appeal is directed against the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur Sessions Division at Rampur dated January 12, 2000 whereby the Appellant Parkash Chand, hereinafter referred to as the "accused", was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 302, 436 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of rupees 5,000 for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He is further sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of rupees 1,000 for an offence punishable under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of rupees 500 for an offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. In case of default in the payment of fine, the accused is to undergo simple imprisonment for one year, six months and three months, respectively on each count. The sentences are directed to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case was: Parkash Chand "accused" is son of Narain Dass resident of village Thala within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Rampur in the District of Shimla. Narain Dass and his brother Twarku Ram (PW 9) had a common wife in accordance with custom "polyandry" prevalent in the area. Four children, two sons and two daughters, were born to the common wife. Accused Parkash Chand and Bimla Devi were named as issues of Narain Dass the other son Raj Pal and Maina Devi (PW 13) were entered as children of Twarku Ram in the record. Both the brOrs. Narain Dass and Twarku Ram lived in the same house in the village. Twarku Ram was employed as Assistant Lineman with Haryana State Electricity Board and was posted at Panchkula at the relevant time. Twarku Ram and Narain Dass lived separately though in the same house at Thala. Accused Parkash Chand was married in January or February, 1996. Relations between Narain Dass and the accused became strained after the marriage. He separated the accused, gave him his share in the property. Accused with his wife started living in a cattle shed (Khud) in the ground floor of the house. Narain Dass lived with the daughter of his predeceased daughter Bimla Devi. Relations between Narain Dass and the accused became strained after the marriage. He separated the accused, gave him his share in the property. Accused with his wife started living in a cattle shed (Khud) in the ground floor of the house. Narain Dass lived with the daughter of his predeceased daughter Bimla Devi. The house consisted of three khuds/cattle sheds in the ground floor and three living rooms on the upper storey. There was no electricity connection in the cattle sheds including the cattle shed occupied by the accused. One of the Khud/cattle shed was in the occupation of Bahadur Singh for tethering his' cattle. On December 21, 1998, Narain Dass asked the accused to pay rupees 50 on account of his share for the electricity bill which Narain Dass is supposed to have received during the course of the day. Accused refused to pay the electricity bill. On the evening of December 22, 1998, Narain Dass asked the accused not to take electricity supply to his room (khud) from the meter. An argument ensued between the two. Accused started quarreling with his father. He slapped his father and pushed him from the verandah of the first floor. Narain Dass fell down in the courtyard. Accused then gagged the mouth of his father with a handkerchief (Ext. P8). Narain Dass died. Accused carried the dead body of his father to one of the cattle sheds in occupation of Bahadur Singh. He thereafter returned back to his room. When his wife was asleep, the accused came to the cattle shed where he had kept the dead body of his father, dug up a grave and buried the body of his father. On December 23, 1998, he left the house along with his wife sister's daughter who was living with his father Narain Dass to the house of his in-laws. He returned back half way through asking his wife to go to her parental house and that he would join them later. He returned to his own house at about 9.00 p.m. He set his house on fire at about 10.30 in the night. The entire house was gutted in fire. The villagers rushed to extinguish the fire. The accusedin the meanwhile, had returned back to the house of his in-laws at Munish. Twarku Ram (PW 9) brother of deceased Narain Dass was informed about the fire. Twarku Ram came to Thala. The entire house was gutted in fire. The villagers rushed to extinguish the fire. The accusedin the meanwhile, had returned back to the house of his in-laws at Munish. Twarku Ram (PW 9) brother of deceased Narain Dass was informed about the fire. Twarku Ram came to Thala. Accused returned back on the evening of December 25, 1998. When asked about the whereabouts of his father-Narain Dass, he informed Twarku Ram and other villagers that Narain Dass had left the house on the morning of December 23, .1998. Narain Dass could not be traced. Twarku Ram and accused reported at the Police Station about the incidence of fire on December 27, 1998. Head Constable Padam Singh (PW 16) came to village Thala on December 29, 1998. He looked for Narain Dass in the debris of the burnt house. Despite thorough search, neither Narain Dass nor his dead body nor remains could be found in the debris. It is the further case of the prosecution that Urmila Devi (PW 6) wife of Singhi Ram, who is brother of deceased Narain Dass, was grazing cattle near the gutted house of Narain Dass on Jafiuary 9, 1999. She noticed files hovering the burnt house of Narain Dass. She informed Jagat Singh (PW 2) Up-Pradhan of Gram Panchyat and Saindi Ram (PW v. 3) Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat about the hovering of the flies over the debris. Both Jagat Singh and Saindi Ram went to the gutted house of Narain Dass along with other villagers. They again looked into the debris but could not find anything. It is the case of the prosecution that while the villagers were looking into the debris, accused took Jagat Singh and Saindi Ram aside and told them that on the evening of December 22, 1998, at 7.30 p.m., he slapped his father as he had demanded rupees 50 from him on account of his share of the electricity bill. He also confessed that he pushed his father from the verandah of the first floor who fell down in the court yard and died. He also told that he came down and then gagged the mouth of his father and dumped his dead body in a grave dug by him in the cattle shed/(khuds). He also confessed that he pushed his father from the verandah of the first floor who fell down in the court yard and died. He also told that he came down and then gagged the mouth of his father and dumped his dead body in a grave dug by him in the cattle shed/(khuds). He took Jagat Singh and Saindi Ram to the cattle shed in occupation of Bahadur Singh where he had buried the dead body of his father. Jagat Singh and Saindi Ram asked the villagers, who had collected there, to dig up the place. After the site was dug for some depth, human hairs and portion of head surfaced. Jagat Singh and Saindi Ram stopped further digging. Jagat Singh sent a person to inform the Police. As police did not turn up therefore, Jagat Singh went to the Police Station along with the accused on January 12,1999 and lodged the First Information Report (Ext. PD). 3. Assistant Sub Inspector Amar Chand (PW 20), the Investigating Officer along with other police officers visited the spot on the same day. He had also taken with him Dr. Padam Dev Sharma, Medical Officer, to conduct the post mortem on the dead body on the spoils The dead body was taken out from the pit. The body was totally putrefied' and was merely a skeleton. Handkerchief Ext. P8 was found in the mouth of the .body. Some clothes were also found lying near the dead body. The dead body was identified by Jagat Singh (PW 2), Saindi Ram (PW 3) and Singhi Ram (PW 7), brother of deceased Narain Dass, to be that of Narain Dass. After the preparation of the inquest report, post mortem was conducted by Dr. Padam Dev Sharma (PW 1) on the spot who opined that the condition of the dead body was. suggestive of death due to respiratory arrest. The police, on the disclosure statement made by the accused, recovered his shirts Exts. P9 and P10 from the dogri of Shyam Lalwhere he was staying after his house was gutted in fire. He also got recovered belcha (shovel) Ext. Pll. 4. It is the case of the prosecution that motive to kill Narain Dass was that he had executed a will of his property in favour of Maina Devi daughter of his brother Twarku Ram and Ors. disinheriting the accused. 5. We have heard Mr. He also got recovered belcha (shovel) Ext. Pll. 4. It is the case of the prosecution that motive to kill Narain Dass was that he had executed a will of his property in favour of Maina Devi daughter of his brother Twarku Ram and Ors. disinheriting the accused. 5. We have heard Mr. Anup Chitkara, Advocate, who was appointed amicus curie to defend the Appellant/accused and Mr. J.K. Verma, learned Assistant Advocate General. We have also perused the record through which we were taken by the learned Counsel in considerable detail. Admittedly, there is no direct evidence against the accused. The entire case of the prosecution rests on: extra-judicial confession made by the accused; recovery of belcha (shovel) and slightly burnt shirt at the instance of the accused; motive. Extra Judicial Confession: 6. The extra-judicial confession alleged to have been made by the accused to Jagat Singh (PW 2) and Saindi-Ram (PW 3) is the main stay of the case of the prosecution. If this alleged extra-judicial confession is excluded, there is, admittedly, no other evidence to justify the conviction of the accused. 7. It is the case of the prosecution that house of deceased in which his son accused Parkash Chand also used to stay, was gutted in fire on the night of December 23, 1998. It is also undisputed that accused was living separately from his father in one of the khuds/cattle sheds along with his wife and children given to him by his father in the ground floor of the house. Narain Dass used to live with the daughter of his predeceased daughter Bimla in his house. It is also not in dispute that accused had left his house on the morning of December 23, 1998 and returned back to the village on December 25, 1998. It is the evidence of PW 2 Jagat Singh that on the night of December 23, 1998, he was informed about the house of the deceased having been burnt in fire. The deceased or his family members, at the relevant time, were not in the house. It is the evidence of PW 2 Jagat Singh that on the night of December 23, 1998, he was informed about the house of the deceased having been burnt in fire. The deceased or his family members, at the relevant time, were not in the house. He further stated that it was on December 25, 1998, when he was present near the gutted house of deceased, the accused along with his wife and children came there and on his asking, he informed that he had left his house on the morning of December 23, 1998 and was staying in the Dogri of Shyam Lal. Roshan Lal (PW 8) stated that on December 23, 1998 at about 2.30 p.m., he was grazing the sheep and goats near the house of the deceased and he met the accused, his wife and his niece (Bhanji) daughter of Bimla Devi. On his inquiry, the accused informed him that his daughter was unwell and he was going to village Munish. It was on January 9, 1999 that Urmila (PW 6), wife of Singhi Ram, met him and informed that flies were hovering on the debris of the burnt house of the deceased. It is his evidence that he along with Saindi Ram (PW 3) President of the Gram Panchayat went to the house of the deceased along with the villagers and the accused. The debris of the house was thoroughly searched but nothing incriminating was found. It is his further evidence that he took aside the accused and asked him if he had burnt his father in the house, he should come out with the truth. In his own words, "it was already 2.30/3.00 p.m. and we were already exhausted. In the meantime, we took the accused aside and asked him that in case he had put the house of the deceased on fire and had also burnt him with the same as was indicated from the foul smell emanating from the site of the burnt house where flies were also hovering around, he should come out with the truth". On this enquiry, the accused told him that there was a quarrel between him and his father at about 6.00 p.m. on December 22, 1998 regarding the payment of the electricity bill and that when he was connecting the electricity supply to his portion of the house, deceased objected. On this enquiry, the accused told him that there was a quarrel between him and his father at about 6.00 p.m. on December 22, 1998 regarding the payment of the electricity bill and that when he was connecting the electricity supply to his portion of the house, deceased objected. He gave a push to the deceased who fell down in the court-yard and died. He took the dead body to cattle shed/khud and buried it on the western side of the khud. He also put a handkerchief in the mouth of the deceased, kept his clothes on one side of the khud. The next day, he left for the house of his in laws and returned back half way and set the house on fire at about 1.30 p.m. and then went back to the house of his in-laws at Munish. All of them came to the khud where the dead body of the deceased was buried by the accused. On digging the point indicated by the accused, hairs and head of the body surfaced. The digging was stopped. A person was sent to Rampur to report the matter to the Police. The Police did not come on that day and on the next day. Therefore he, accompanied by the accused, went to Police Station, Rampur and lodged report Exhibit PD with the Police. It is the further evidence of this witness that Police immediately came to the gutted house of the deceased along with a Doctor. The dead body was dug out by the Police. The body was identified to be that of the deceased by him, Singh Ram, brother of the deceased and other villagers present. The pit from which the dead body was recovered was three and half to four feet in depth. The dead body was naked and clothes of the deceased were lying around the dead body in the pit. The dead body and the spot seen thereafter was photographed by the Police which were taken into possession by the Police vide memo Exhibit PE. The Doctor who had come with the Police conducted the post mortem on the dead body. The body, thereafter, was cremated under the police supervision. It is the evidence of this witness that relations between the accused and deceased were strained since 1996 when there was a quarrel between the two. The Doctor who had come with the Police conducted the post mortem on the dead body. The body, thereafter, was cremated under the police supervision. It is the evidence of this witness that relations between the accused and deceased were strained since 1996 when there was a quarrel between the two. He also stated that the deceased had executed a will about fifteen days prior to the occurrence in which the house was gutted. The will was executed in favour of the sons of Twarku and Ors. excluding the accused. 8. Mr. Anup Chitkara, learned Counsel for the accused contends that no acceptable evidence of such confession allegedly made by the accused nor there was any occasion for the accused to do so. He also contended that only a skeleton was recovered from the pit which is not proved to be that of Narain Dass. 9. The argument of Mr. Chitkara is that the Investigating Agency in troduced the evidence of extra-judicial confession simply to implicate the accused as the investigating agency was at its wits end on the recovery of the skeleton particularly when Narain Dass was missing. The evidence of extra judicial confessionin view of the dead end met by the prosecution, was fabricated by the Police. It is his contention that evidence produced by the prosecution renders the extra-judicial confession improbable and unworthy of reliance. 10. Mr. Chitkara referred to the letter of request, Exhibit PA, to Medical Officer, Primary Health Center, Deothi for conducting the post-mortem examination on the spot. In his letter of request, the Investigating Officer recorded: It is essential to carry out the autopsy of the dead body on the spot because the dead body is about 21/22 days old and the same might have been almost decomposed. So, it is not possible to bring the dead body to PHC. Therefore, it is requested that after visiting the spot, i.e. village Thala, the post-mortem on the dead body of Narain Dass may be conducted and report thereof be supplied. (Emphasis supplied) 11. The contention is that the Investigating Officer, by no imagination could have known that the dead body was "almost decomposed" and, therefore, it was necessary for the Medical Officer to conduct the post mortem on the spot unless the Investigating Officer had seen the dead body. The contentionin our .view, is well founded. 12. (Emphasis supplied) 11. The contention is that the Investigating Officer, by no imagination could have known that the dead body was "almost decomposed" and, therefore, it was necessary for the Medical Officer to conduct the post mortem on the spot unless the Investigating Officer had seen the dead body. The contentionin our .view, is well founded. 12. In the First Information Report lodged with the Police on January 12, 1999 Exhibit PD, Jagat Singh (PW 2) recorded: We started to remove the debris, hair of a person came to sight and thereafter we stopped the digging. 13. It is also the case of trie prosecution and evidence of Jagat Singh (PW 2) and Saindi Ram (PW 3) that the dead body was not taken out from the pit. Saindi Ram appearing as PW 3 stated: After digging for some time, human hair surfaced and further dig ging was stopped. Thereafter the matter was reported to the police on the next day. 14. In the given circumstances, we fail to fathom how the Investigating Officer could know (a) the dead body was 21/22 days old (b) it was totally decomposed unless he had seen the dead body or was informed that body was totally putrefied or decomposed and reduced to skeleton and was 21/22 days old. This telling aspect renders the prosecution story, solely based on extra judicial confession, open to doubt and lend credence to the argument of the learned Counsel for the 'Accused' that evidence of extra judicial confession was concocted and introduced to implicate the accused who did not have very cordial relations with his deceased father. 15. This apart, we find that the medical evidence does not support the confession alleged to have been made by the accused to Jagat Singh and Saindi Ram. Dr. Padam Dev Sharma, who conducted the post-mortem on the dead body, recovered from the pit, appearing as PW 1, stated that he did not find any injury on the dead body which had been reduced to bony skeleton. It is his evidence that he found that mandible and the hip joints of the skeleton were dislocated. There was no fracture of any kind on the dead body/skeleton. According to him, dislocation of mandible and ^ hip joint could be a result of dragging of the dead body. It is his evidence that he found that mandible and the hip joints of the skeleton were dislocated. There was no fracture of any kind on the dead body/skeleton. According to him, dislocation of mandible and ^ hip joint could be a result of dragging of the dead body. According to this witness, the cloth in the mouth of the dead body and dislocation of mandible was suggestive of respiratory arrest. In the column No. 11 of the Post-mortem report Ext. PC, under head IV-Abdomen, the detail as to organs of generation, external and internal has not been given. It is his evidence that the dead body was only a bony skeleton and had substantially been decomposed though a part of flesh was intact. His explanation for leaving the column in the post mortem report blank and scoring them off was that opinion about these parts of the body was not possible. The Doctorin his cross-examination, stated that it was his first post-mortem examination. 16. It may be recalled that PW 2 Jagat Singh is categorical that accused on his asking and prompting, told him that a quarrel took place between him and his father and he (accused) gave a push to his father who fell down in the court-yard below and died. If he fell down from a first floor in the court yard of the ground floor, the deceased would have sustained corresponding injuries or fracture of the bones but the Doctor did not find any injury or fracture on the dead body. It appears, the conduct of the post mortem was a perfunctory which we presently shall note. According to Dr. Padam Dev Sharma (PW 1), he could not notice injuries on the dead body as it had substantially been decomposed and was "virtually a bony skeleton". This explanation does not stand scrutiny. 17. Modi in his Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 22nd Edition (Students Edition) at page 109 records that examination of decomposed bodies should be complete and held on the same lines as in ordinary autopsies. He further notices that in case of external fatal injuries, it is not difficult to find the cause of death. Even in decomposed bodies, it is not difficult to find the fracture of the bones. Modi records that viscera should always be preserved. He further notices that in case of external fatal injuries, it is not difficult to find the cause of death. Even in decomposed bodies, it is not difficult to find the fracture of the bones. Modi records that viscera should always be preserved. At page 128 for the examination of the exhumed bodies, Modi records: In case of bodies, which have laid underground for a sufficiently long time and undergone putrefaction, an attempt should be made to determine the sex, stature and marks of identification. A photograph of the exhumed body may also help in identification. If necessary, an X-ray examination of the cadaver should be undertaken. Hair found on the body should be preserved in a dry, clean glass bottle for subsequent identification and chemical analysis. A search should also be made for recent or old injuries, such as factures. All the cavities should be examined, and as many viscera as can be obtained, should be preserved separately in dry, clean, wide-mouthed glass bottle or jar without exposing them unnecessarily to air. 18. In the present case, Dr. Padam Dev Sharma did not bother to notice any fracture nor did he preserve the hair which were found on the dead body. If the body was about 20 days old some viscera would be present. We are sorry to note that the opinion of the Doctor that death was due to respiratory arrest was based on mere assumption. In his own words, "The cloth in the mouth packed and dislocation of mandible was suggestive of death due to respiratory arrest". In cross-examination, he admitted that in case mouth of a person is gagged with a piece of cloth and nostrils remain open, it would not ordinarily lead to respiratory arrest. There was not a shred of evidence that mouth of the body was closed. He also stated that dislocation of mandible could be as a result of dragging of the dead body and similar dislocation of his hip joints could also be due to this reason. He then stated that dislocation can also be as a result of putrefaction of the dead body. 19. He also stated that dislocation of mandible could be as a result of dragging of the dead body and similar dislocation of his hip joints could also be due to this reason. He then stated that dislocation can also be as a result of putrefaction of the dead body. 19. In the absence of any injury including fracture of any bone, makes the extra-judicial confession that deceased fell down by the push of the accused and died becomes improbable and the cause of death becomes uncertain inasmuch as mere placing a piece of cloth in the mouth would not result in respiratory failure if nostrils were open. There is no evidence, nor anything in the so-called retracted confessional statement of the accused to PW Jagat Singh and Saindi Ram, that he had closed the nostrils of the deceased. In fact, if we read the statement of Jagat Singh carefully, he is categorical that what accused told him was that deceased on the push given by the accused, fell in the court yard and died. In other words, deceased was already dead when he put handkerchief in the mouth of the deceased. In the own words of Jagat Singh: He revealed that when he was connecting the electricity supply to the portion of the house in his occupation, the deceased objected and as a result he gave a push to the deceased who fell down in the courtyard below and died. The accused further confessed that there after he took the dead body to the khud located on the ground floor of the house and buried the same there on the western side of the khud. He further revealed that he had put a handkerchief in the mouth of the deceased and had kept his clothes in the khud on the one side." (Emphasis supplied) 20. In First Information Report, this witness stated to the police in no uncertain terms that accused had told him that the deceased died due to fall. In the words of Jagat Singh in the FIR: .... Then Parkash Chand told me and Pradhan Saindi Ram that electricity bill was received on 21.12.1998. On 22.12.1998, during evening his father asked him to pay a sum of Rs. 50 for electricity bill. He refused to pay the same. So his father refused to supply electricity to him from his meter. Then Parkash Chand told me and Pradhan Saindi Ram that electricity bill was received on 21.12.1998. On 22.12.1998, during evening his father asked him to pay a sum of Rs. 50 for electricity bill. He refused to pay the same. So his father refused to supply electricity to him from his meter. At about 7.00 p.m., when he tried to connect the light, his father objected to connect the light from his meter. On getting furious, he slapped his father and push him from the upper verandah to downwards. He died due to felling. At that time, his wife was preparing meal. After lifting the dead body of his father he put the same in a cattle shed (khud) and closed the door. (Emphasis supplied) 21. It, is evident that accused even according to this witness, did not confess about he having killed his father by gagging his mouth. Thus, the medical evidence does not support the so called confession made by the accused to Jagat Singh and Saindi Ram. It is true that Jagat Singh in his evidence has stated that accused had told him that he had put a handkerchief in the mouth of the deceased and thereafter disposed of the dead body in a pit but this is in itself would not mean that he killed his father by asphyxia due to suffocation by putting handkerchief in the mouth of his father. The medical evidence is inconsistent to the confession allegedly made by the accused to Jagat Singh and Saindi Ram making it improbable and not trust worthy. 22. In Chhittar v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1994 SC 214, the facts were some what similar to this case. In that case accused was convicted on the basis of retracted extra judicial confession allegedly made by him to two witnesses nearly after 20 days of the occurrence. The deceased was an old women of 70 years. On April 11, 1975, she was alleged to have gone to a neighboring village and was missing since then. Her nephew lodged a report on April 24, 1975 that she was missing. The accused allegedly confessed before two witnesses, a day prior to the registration of the case. The body was recovered after digging the earth. The post mortem was conducted nearly after 20 days of the occurrence. Her nephew lodged a report on April 24, 1975 that she was missing. The accused allegedly confessed before two witnesses, a day prior to the registration of the case. The body was recovered after digging the earth. The post mortem was conducted nearly after 20 days of the occurrence. The Doctor who conducted the post mortem found that dead of by was in a highly decomposed state and he could notice only a fracture of the third Cervical Vertibra of the spine. He, however, found that skull was intact. The Doctor admitted a suggestion that if anybody falls from 6 ft. -7ft., then such a fracture was possible. This suggestion was made as body was found near a nallah. According to the witness to whom confession was made, accused allegedly confessed that he hit the deceased on the head and other parts of the body but the Doctor did not find any fracture of the skull or any other internal injury. In this background, the Apex Court in an appeal against conviction observed: The case of the prosecution rests on retracted extra judicial confession. It is well settled that the retracted extra judicial confession is a very weak type of evidence and strong corroborating circumstances should be there. Before we proceed further, it is necessary to examine whether the death was a homicidal one. Unfortunatelyfor the prosecution, the body was recovered 20 days later and it was in a highly decomposed state. The doctor (S.B. Raha) who conducted the post-mortem found, only fracture of the third Cervical Vertibra of the spine and no other injuries. He noted that the same could not be ascertained whether it was the ante-mortem or post-mortem injury. No doubtin his further deposition he has answered to a question that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The answer given does not in any manner improve the prosecution casein view of the fact that the doctor could not categorically say whether the fracture was ante-mortem or post-mortem. That apart, according to PW 11, the accused is alleged to have confessed that he hit the deceased on the head and other parts of the body. But the doctor did not find, as noted above, any fracture of the skull or any other internal injuries. Therefore, the version as per the extra judicial confession is inconsistent with the medical evidence. But the doctor did not find, as noted above, any fracture of the skull or any other internal injuries. Therefore, the version as per the extra judicial confession is inconsistent with the medical evidence. The extra judicial confession should be taken as a whole and should not suffer from any infirmity even if it is to be acted upon. But in this case we find that the belated confession itself becomes doubtful in the light of the medical evidence apart from being the same retracted. We think it is highly unsafe to sustain the conviction. In the result, the conviction and sentence awarded by the lower courts are set aside. The Appellant should be set at liberty, if he is in jail. (Emphasis supplied) 23. In the present case too, the medical evidence is in contradiction to the version given in the alleged confession. The confession was made almost 20 days after the occurrence and, thereforein our view, it will be unsafe to base the conviction on such a confession. 24. In addition to what we have noticed above, we find the evidence of Jagat Singh (PW 2) and Saindi Ram (PW 3), to whom the confession was allegedly made by the accused, does not inspire confidence being in contradiction to each other on this material aspect of the case. It is the evidence of Jagat Singh that on January 9, 1999, on the information given to him, by Urmila (PW 6) that flies were hovering around burnt house he visited the house of the deceased along with Saindi Ram and other villagers All of them searched the debris but could not find anything. So he and Saindi Ram took the accused aside and asked him that in case he had put the house of the deceased on fire and also burnt him with the same, a was indicated from the foul smell emanating from the site of the burnt house, then he should come out with the truth and it was on this prodding that confession was made by the accused. However, the version of Saindi Ram is different. It is his evidence that he along with Jagat Singh was in his house on January 9, 1999 when Urmila came to them and informed that flies were hovering around the debris of the house of deceased and there was foul smell. However, the version of Saindi Ram is different. It is his evidence that he along with Jagat Singh was in his house on January 9, 1999 when Urmila came to them and informed that flies were hovering around the debris of the house of deceased and there was foul smell. They visited the village Thala on January 10, 1999 along with Tara Chand and inspected the site. It is his evidence, "I summoned PW 2 Jagat Singh and some other villagers to the spot scene. The accused was also present there at that time. We carried out a search of the debris of the burnt house. The exercise continued up to about 4 p.m. In the meantime, the accused called me and PW 2 Jagat Singh aside" and made the confession. Now according to PW 2 Jagat Singh, it was he and Saindi Ram who took the accused aside and the accused made the confession, whereas, according to Saindi Ram (PW 3), accused him self called him and Jagat Singh aside and made the confession without any reason. This contradiction cannot be brushed aside. It dents the prosecution version. 25. This part, according to the prosecution case, as recorded in the FIR, the accused allegedly while making the confession stated to Jagat Singh and Saindi Ram that when his father died, his wife was preparing the meal. He carried the dead body and placed it in the khud and returned balk to his room, took his meal and told his wife that he was to go to village and left the house. He did not go to the village but kept on sitting in the field and when his wife was asleep, he came to the house, dug the pit, buried the body and then returned back to his adjoining khud to sleep with his children. It is incredible to believe that a quarrel between the accused and his father took place as a result of which Narain Dass, father of the accused, fell down and died but the wife of the accused could not know anything. It is admitted position that daughter of pre-deceased daughter of Narain Dass was living with him and at least she would have known about the quarrel and her grand-father having fallen down and told the villagers about it. It is admitted position that daughter of pre-deceased daughter of Narain Dass was living with him and at least she would have known about the quarrel and her grand-father having fallen down and told the villagers about it. She would not havein the face of the facts alleged, walked away with the accused on the next very day to the house of the in-laws of the accused. The entire story of confession appears to be untrustworthy and concocted. Moresoin view of the fact that the FIR was recorded by the Police on January 12, 1999, three days after the alleged confession was made by the accused which possibly gave the Police time to doctor the First Information Report to introduce the confession. 26. It is the evidence of Jagat Singh that he came from Rampur on January 9, 1999 to Barkhamb where Urmila met him and informed him about the flies hovering over the burnt house of the deceased and foul smell coming from the place. At the bus stand, according to this witness, President Gram Panchayat was also present. Both of them came to the spot along with the villagers. They searched the place but could not find anything till 2.30 p.m. and it is at that point of time that he and Saindi Ram took the accused aside and asked him if he had killed his father and burnt him along with the house and it was on this that confession was made by the accused. It is the further evidence of this witness that he sent a person to Rampur to inform the Police on January 9, 1999 itself. In his own words, "consequently, I sent a person to inform the Police at Rampur on January 9, 1999. However, since the Police was busy in connection with the motor vehicle accident that had taken place at Jhakri, I myself went to the Police on 12.1.1999". It thus, will be reasonable to infer that Police was aware of the dead body having been found in a pit in the cattle shed of the house on January 9 or 10 itself and, therefore, the possibility of the Investigating Officer having visited the spot on January 11, 1999 and having dug up the body, cannot be ruled out. 27. 27. The FIR in the circumstances is bereft of spontaneity and appears to be a result of due deliberations where after the alleged extra judicial confession was introduced. This also explains the application written by the Investigating Officer to the Medical Officer, PHC Deothi Ext. PA wherein the Investigating Officer recorded: Yesterday, when search was carried out the head of the dead body was seen from which foul smell was coming. It is essential to carry out the autopsy of the dead body on the spot because the dead body is about 21/22 days old and the same might have been almost decomposed. 28. The evidence of the extra judicial confession led by the prosecutionin the circumstances, does not inspire confidence. 30. We may now examine Anr. aspect of this case. It is the evidence of Dr. Padam Dev Sharma that Inquest Report Exhibit PB was attached with the application Ext. PA for conducting the post mortem on the spot which was made to him on January 12, 1999 by the Investigating Officer. In cross-examination, Dr. Padam Dev Sharma (PW 1) admitted: The request for post-mortem examination was made by the Police to me at P.H.C. Deothi. The application along with the inquest papers was submitted to me at the P.H.C. at 3 p.m. (Emphasis supplied) 30. Now, the case of the prosecution is that the Investigating Officer after recording of the FIR, first went to Deothi, took Dr. Sharma with him for conducting the post-mortem on the dead body and thereafter reached the spot. Obviously, by that time, when application for post-mortem of the dead body was made, the inquest has not been made on the dead body and the inquest report was not available. It is the evidence of ASI Amar Chand (PW 20), the Investigating Officer, that enrooted to the spot, after recording of the FIR, he went to Deothi, moved an application for conducting post mortem on the body of deceased Narain Dass. Doctor accompanied him to the place of occurrence. The body was dug out from the pit by the villagers including accused Parkash Chand. The photographs were taken and thereafter he prepared the inquest Exhibit PB and submitted to the Doctor for post-mortem examination of the dead body of deceased Narain Dass. Doctor accompanied him to the place of occurrence. The body was dug out from the pit by the villagers including accused Parkash Chand. The photographs were taken and thereafter he prepared the inquest Exhibit PB and submitted to the Doctor for post-mortem examination of the dead body of deceased Narain Dass. If this is the correct version, then by no stretch of imagination, the Investigating Officer would have known that the dead body was totally decomposed or putrefied nor could he have given copy of the inquest report with his application for spot post mortem given to Dr. Sharma at Deothi. On the other hand, Dr. Padam Dev Sharma (PW 1) is, as noticed earlier, categorical that inquest report was given to him at the time when application was moved by the Investigating Officerfor the conduct of the post-mortem examination on the spot at P.H.C. Deothi. From this evidence the only possible conclusion is that- the Investigating Officer had come to the spot a day or two earlier, examined the dead body, may be prepared the inquest report and thereafter recorded the FIR on January 12, 1999, gave the copy of the inquest report to the Doctor, took the Doctor to the spot with him for the post mortem examination of the dead body. In no other circumstances, the inquest report could have been handed over to the Doctor at P.H.C. Deothi. It is the evidence of Jagat Singh that after recording of the FIR Ext. PD, the Police proceeded to the spot along with the accused. A Doctor was also taken by the Police from Primary Health Center Deothi. On reaching the spot, the dead body was got excavated by the Police. 31. The evidence discussed above, cast serious doubt on the truthfulness of the alleged confession made by the accused. 32. We find that there was no reason for the accused to have confessed before Jagat Singh (PW 2) and Saindi Ram (PW 3) when, even after the thorough search of the debris on more than two occasionsincluding the search made on the day alleged confession was made by the accused, nothing incriminating was found. The debris had earlier been searched by Head Constable Pada Singh (PW 16) on December 27, 1998. He remained in the village for two days. The debris had earlier been searched by Head Constable Pada Singh (PW 16) on December 27, 1998. He remained in the village for two days. It is his evidence that on December 27, 1998, he was sent by S.H.O. "to the spot scene for verification of the report received vide D.D.R. No. 5, dated 27.12.1998". According to this witness, "the house of deceased Narain Dass had been gutted in fire. The deceased was not present there at that time". Accused was also not present on 23.12.1998. He went on to state, "the debris of the burnt house was salvaged and searched but dead body was found. I had returned to the Police Station on 29.12.1998".... He categorically stated that no foul play was suspected by the villagers. In his own words, "on enquiry from the persons present on the spot, nothing foul was suspected". It is clear from his evidence that even on that day it was suspected that deceased might have been burnt alive in the house but nobody suspected the accused for any foul play. 33. This apart, Singh Ram (PW 7) and Twarku Ram (PW 9), both brOrs. of deceased Narain Dass, did not suspect any foul play. In fact, Twarku Ram (PW 9) stated in his cross-examination that on his asking the accused privately as to whether there had been quarrel between him and the deceased, accused had told him "that a son cannot kill the father". In his report to the Police, Exhibit PQ which was made on December 27, 1998, he stated thus: "I do not suspect on any one about the fire. I do not know the cause of fire". On January 9, 1999, there was no change in the circumstances. The villagers, after thorough search of the debris once again on that day, could not find anything incriminating. Therefore, there was no reason for the accused to have made confession to Jagat Singh and Saindi Ram. In the circumstances, the possibility of the introduction of concocted extra-judicial confession, as evidenced by. the Police, is distinct and cannot be ruled out. 34. In Kailash v. State of U.P. AIR 1994 SC 470, extra-judicial confession was the main circumstance on which prosecution relied. There was no reason for the accused to have made the confession before the witness. The confession was made almost after 20 days after the alleged crime. the Police, is distinct and cannot be ruled out. 34. In Kailash v. State of U.P. AIR 1994 SC 470, extra-judicial confession was the main circumstance on which prosecution relied. There was no reason for the accused to have made the confession before the witness. The confession was made almost after 20 days after the alleged crime. In this background, learned Judges observed that possibility that the witness of the extra judicial confession deposing at the instance of the Police cannot be ruled out. The evidence of the witness to whom confession was made did not inspire confidence and the extra judicial confession was excluded from consideration. 35. It is true, that in law, conviction can be based on extra judicial confession without looking for. corroboration yet it is well settled that as a matter of prudence, the Court must look to corroboration, more so, if the extra judicial confession is surrounded by suspicious circumstances and is clouded by its inherent weakness. 36. In Ram Chandra and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1957 SC 381, it was observed that it is not safe, as a matter of prudence if not of law, to base a conviction for murder on the confession of the alleged murderer, by itself and without corroboration particularly when such a confession is open to criticism as in the present case. Their Lordships observed: In this case the outstanding feature is that there is no tangible evidence, either of a direct or of a circumstantial naturein support of the fact that the murder has been committed. It is true that in law a conviction for an offence does not necessarily depend upon the corpus delicti being found. There may be reliable evidence, direct or circumstantial, of the commission of the murder though the corpus delicti are not traceable. But the question before us is whether the confession by the alleged murderer, by itself, and without more is enough as a matter of prudence, if not of law, to base a conviction for murder thereupon. Normally speaking it would not be quite safe to do so, though we do not wish to lay it down as a matter of law. 37. Normally speaking it would not be quite safe to do so, though we do not wish to lay it down as a matter of law. 37. Again in Swaran Singh Rattan Singh.v. State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 637, their Lordships observed: In law it is always open to the Court to convict an accused on his confession itself though he has retracted it at a later stage. Nevertheless usually Courts require some corroboration to the confessional statement before convicting an accused person on such a statement. 38. In State of Punjab v. Gurdeep Singh 1999 (4) Crimes 142 (SC), it was observed by the Apex Court that the Court should insist on some assuring material or circumstances to treat extra judicial confession as a piece of substantive evidence. It was further observed that delay in recording the extra judicial confession before a person unconnected with the Police is always a matter of great suspicion. In Gurdeep Singh, the conviction was based on the basis of extra judicial confession. There was no direct evidence linking the accused with the commission of the offence. Learned Judges referred with approval the following observations in Kavita v. State of Tamil Nadu JT 1998 (5) SC 151: There is no doubt that convictions can be based on extra judicial confession but it is well settled that in the very nature of things, it is a weak piece of evidence. It is to be proved just like any other fact and the value thereof depends upon the veracity of the witness to whom it is made. It may not be necessary that the actual words used by the accrued must be given by the witness but it is for the Court to decide on the acceptability of the evidence having regard to the credibility of the witnesses. 39. In Gur deep Singh, the extra judicial confession of the accused was made after more than 20 days without explanation as to what prompted him to make such confession. 40. In the present case too, as noticed earlier, there was no reason for the accused to have made a confession on January 9, 1999 after about 20 days of the commission of the alleged offence particularly when till that point of time, he was not a suspect and there was nothing incriminating against him. 40. In the present case too, as noticed earlier, there was no reason for the accused to have made a confession on January 9, 1999 after about 20 days of the commission of the alleged offence particularly when till that point of time, he was not a suspect and there was nothing incriminating against him. Both Jagat Singh (PW 2) and Saindi Ram (PW 3) were in no position to save him nor at that point of time, the accused was under any kind of threat or harassment. This makes the alleged extra judicial confession made by the accused suspect particularly in the absence of any v. corroborative evidence. There is nothing on the record even by implication to lend corroboration to the facts stated in the alleged extra judicial confession that accused killed his father on December 22, 1998 and set the house in fire on the next day on the night of December 23, 1998. Nobody saw the accused in or near about the house on the evening of December 23,1998. Rather, there is evidence on record, as discussed earlier that accused left his house along with his wife and daughter of his pre-deceased sister, who was living with deceased Narain Dass to his in-laws house as his children were unwell. This part of the evidence' remained unchallenged. Nobody saw him on December 24, 1998 in the village. It was only on December 25, 1998 that he returned back to the village according to the own evidence of the prosecution. It is only in the alleged confession made by the accused that it is stated that he returned back to the village on the night of December 23, 1998. The prosecution did not collect any evidence to show or suggest of even by implication that he had left the house of his in-laws on the night of December 23, 1998. 41. In Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab 1995 Supp (4) SCC 259, it was observed that extra judicial confession by its very nature is rather a weak type of evidence and requires appreciation with great deal of care and caution. In para 10, it was observed: An extra judicial confession by its very nature is rather a weak type of evidence and requires appreciation with a great deal of care and caution. In para 10, it was observed: An extra judicial confession by its very nature is rather a weak type of evidence and requires appreciation with a great deal of care and caution. Where an extra judicial confession is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, its credibility becomes doubtful and it loses its importance. The courts generally look for independent ^B reliable corroboration before placing any reliance upon an extra judicial confession. 42. The Apex Court in Sakharam Shankar Bansode v. State of Maharashtra 1994 SCC 505, observed that retracted extra judicial confession can be relied upon but the same has to be corroborated by independent evidence. The learned Judges observed that "Court must be satisfied that confession alleged to have been made by the accused was true and voluntary for which the surrounding circumstances must be considered". 43. In Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab 2000 SCC 236, the only evidence against the Appellant was an extra judicial confession v. stated to have been made by him before the Sarpanch of the village and the dying declaration recorded by the Judicial Magistrate. Appellant was convicted, on the basis of dying declaration and the extra judicial confession, by the trial Court. High Court confirmed the findings. It was contended before the Apex Court that it was highly improbable that in the absence of any relationship with the Sarpanch or for any other good reasons, . the Appellant would have gone to the Sarpanch to make confession. It was confessed by the Appellant in that case that he purchased the poisonous tablets which led to the death of one Sukhwinder Kaur. In this background. Their Lordships held that if what the Sarpanch had deposed was really true, the Investigating Officer would have then tried to find out from whose shop the tablets were purchased but no such attempt was made. In these circumstances. Their Lordships held: The evidence of the Sarpanch is not such as could have been accepted without any independent corroboration An extra-judicial confession even if believed is considered a very weak piece of evidence and ordinarily is not accepted without independent corroboration. 44. In the present case too, as observed earlier, we find that no attempt was made by the Investigating Officer to find the presence of the accused in the village Thala or around the house allegedly lit on fire by him on the night of December 23, 1998. 44. In the present case too, as observed earlier, we find that no attempt was made by the Investigating Officer to find the presence of the accused in the village Thala or around the house allegedly lit on fire by him on the night of December 23, 1998. Had such a confession been truly made, as the prosecution would have us believe, the Investigating Officer would have taken steps to get evidence to show the presence of the accused near about the house of his father or in the village or at least the evidence to show that he was not available in the house of his in-laws house on the evening of the fateful night when house was gutted in fire. We note that it is curious to note that the khud/cattle shed, from which dead body/ skeleton was recovered was admittedly in the occupation of one Bahadur Singh for tethering his cattle. Yet said Bahadur Singh was not examined by the prosecution though he was material witness to show whether or not on the evening of December 23, 1998 cattle were tethered in that cattle shed and if so, who undeterred them. 45. The inescapable conclusion is that the alleged confession made J by the accused to Jagat Singh (PW 2) and Saindi Ram (PW 3)in the absence of any corroboration, is not trustworthy or probable in the face of the evidence ^^on record and, therefore, cannot be relied upon to base the conviction of the accused. Mr. Anup Chitkara, Advocate then submitted that it is the positive case of the prosecution that after the accused pointed out the place where the dead body of the deceased was lying burried by him, the place was dug and hair and head of a person were seen. Immediately, further digging was stopped. Both Jagat Singh (PW 2) and Saindi Ram (PW 3) have deposed to this effect. It is curious that Kairs found on the spot were not taken into possession by the Investigating Officer though it was material evidence. Dr. Padam Dev Sharma (PW 1) though is categorical in his evidence that there were no hairs on the scalp of the body. In the own words of Dr. P.D.. Sharma (PW 1): "Hairs were not present on the head of the deceased. 46. Jagat Singh and Saindi Ram are obviously less than truthful in their testimony. 47. Dr. Padam Dev Sharma (PW 1) though is categorical in his evidence that there were no hairs on the scalp of the body. In the own words of Dr. P.D.. Sharma (PW 1): "Hairs were not present on the head of the deceased. 46. Jagat Singh and Saindi Ram are obviously less than truthful in their testimony. 47. If hairs were found in the pit or on the scalp, then such hairs definitely would have been taken into possession. We hardly need to emphasis that hairs and fibers constitute one of the important part of biological ma- terial involved in the crimes, like murder, rape, theft etc. They may be found on the person of the victim or an accused or deceased or at the scene of crime. In any event, they provide a link that can scientifically be used in the investigation of the crime. 48. It is so noticed by Modi in his Medical Jurisprudence & Toxicology Twenty-Second Edition at page-187. In all probability, there were no hairs as deposed by the Doctor because the body had reduced to skeleton which is admitted unanimously by all the witnesses including Jagat Singh and Saindi Ram. This too raises doubt on the credibility of the evidence of Jagat Singh and Saindi Ram. 49. Mr. Chitkara next contended that if the accused had buried the dead body of his father Narain Dass in a pit four feet in depth, then there was no reason for him to have burnt the house along with his own belongings. There is substance in the contention. If the intention of the accused was to burn the dead body by putting the house on fire, then there was no reason for him to have dug the pit and buried the dead body deep. 50. It is very significant to note, as pointed out by Mr. Chitkara, that Urmila Devi (PW 6), as stated by her, had merely seen the flies hovering around the burnt house. She never stated that any foul smell was coming from the debris. It is only Jagat Singh and Saindi Ram who improved on her statement to say that foul smell was also coming from the debris. This conclusion is strengthened from the fact that even in the FIR Exhibit PD, which was recorded on the statement of Jagat Singh, there is no mention of any foul smell coming from the debris. It is only Jagat Singh and Saindi Ram who improved on her statement to say that foul smell was also coming from the debris. This conclusion is strengthened from the fact that even in the FIR Exhibit PD, which was recorded on the statement of Jagat Singh, there is no mention of any foul smell coming from the debris. The relevant portion of the statement recorded in the FIR reads: On 9.1.1999, I was going back to my house at village Thala from Rampur. At about 2.00 p.m., Saindi Ram Pardhan met me at Barkhal. The wife of Singh Ram had informed both of us that flies were hovering on the burnt house of Narain Dass. So both of us decided to see the spot. 51. It may be seen that there is no mention about the foul smell coming from the debris. This substantial improvement was made by Jagat Singh and Saindi Ram in their statements in the Court also render their testimony unworthy of reliance and consequently the alleged confession open to doubt. 52. As discussed earlier, there is evidence on record to show that accused was absent from the village^ and the house from December 23, 1998 till the noon of December 25, 1998. It is the evidence of Roshan Lal (PW 8) that on December 23,1998, at about 2.30 or 3.00 p.m. while he was grazing his sheep and goats near the house of the deceased, accused accompanied by his wife and his sister's daughter (Bhanji) met him and on his asking where he was going, he informed that his daughter was ailing and he was going to his in-laws house. It is the evidence of Jagat Singh (PW 2) that on December 25, 1998, he was present near the burnt house of the deceased when accused accompanied by his wife and children came there. Thus, the absence of the accused from the village and the house from December 23, 1998 to December 25, 1998 is established and therefore, he could not have lit the house on fire on the night of December 23, 1998 if extra judicial confession is excluded from consideration. We may again repeat that there is no evidence on the record to link the accused with the letting of the house of deceased on fire. We may again repeat that there is no evidence on the record to link the accused with the letting of the house of deceased on fire. It is true that Jagat Singh (PW 2) stated in his evidence that accused had told him that he returned back half way from his in-laws house and put the house on fire but this was a part of alleged confession 'made to this witness and Saindi Ram. There is no evidence apart from this confession to show that accused in fact returned back to his house at 10.30 p.m. to lit it on fire We have already said that extra judicial confession being untrustworthy cannot be relied upon. 53. The next contention of Mr. Chitkara is that the prosecution has failed to prove that the skeleton recovered from the cattle shed was of Narain Dass deceased. The argument is that the dead body was merely a skeleton and it was not possible to identify it. Jagat Singh (PW 2) stated that the dead body was got excavated by the Police and it was identified to be that of deceased by him, Singh Ram, the brother of the deceased. Singh Ram (PW 6) stated that skeleton was identified to be that of Narain Dass by the clothes of the deceased which were found lying in the pit. He further stated that, "dead body had decomposed. It was virtually a bony skeleton. The dead body was identified by us with the help of clothes of the deceased lying around the same. Otherwise it was beyond recognition. Singh Ram who is none else the brother of deceased Narain Dassin cross-examination stated: It is correct to suggest that dead body of deceased could not be identified from its face. No such identification mark such as any old scar was present on the dead body. 54. Even Amar Chand ASI stated that the dead body was identified by Singhi Ram brother of the deceased. He admitted that the body was almost decomposed. Now, Singhi Ram, as noticed earlier, is categorical that "^the dead body was not identifiable and it was identified by the clothes of the deceased which were found lying in the pit near the dead body. He admitted that the body was almost decomposed. Now, Singhi Ram, as noticed earlier, is categorical that "^the dead body was not identifiable and it was identified by the clothes of the deceased which were found lying in the pit near the dead body. ASI Amar Chand though tried to improve and stated that though the dead body was in advance stage of putrefaction yet it was not beyond recognition as the facial skin was present and was sticking to the bones. This part of the statement of the Investigating Officer is belied by the Inquest Report Exhibit PB prepared by him. In column No. 8, it is recorded: Limbs have been decomposed only the skeleton of dead body has been left". Column 8 reads: "Position of limbs, eyes and "Limbs have been decomposed mouth: only the skeleton of dead body has been left. 55. Dr. Padam Dev Sharma in his post-mortem report recorded that only the bony skeleton was present. The relevant column of report reads: Condition of subject-stout, Only bony skeleton is present. Emaciated, decomposed Etc. clothing. 56. Nowhere in the post-mortem report, Doctor noticed that there were remains of facial skin. 57. It is the case of the prosecution and Dr. P.D. Sharma is emphatic that the skeleton-isolation of the body was the result of decomposition f of the body. It is his evidence: The dead body had substantially decomposed. It was virtually a bony skeleton 58. There is no acceptable evidence on record to show that the skeleton recovered from the cattle shed of the burnt house of the deceased was that of deceased Narain Dass. 59. Mr. Chitkara submitted that human body cannot decompose within 20 days particularly in cold climate so as to reduce it to a skeleton. He argued that learned Sessions Judge himself has noticed in his judgment that village Thala of the accused person is situate in higher hills of Tehsil Rampur, District Shimla. The alleged occurrence took place on December 22/23, 1998 and the dead body was recovered on January 12, 1999. The^ dead body thus remained buried in the coldest period of this region for about 20 days. Dr. P.D. Sharma in his evidence stated: It may take one year for an unconfined dead body buried under ground to turn into a skeleton but I am not sure about it. 60. Dr. K.S. Narayan Reddy, M.D., D.C.P., Ph. The^ dead body thus remained buried in the coldest period of this region for about 20 days. Dr. P.D. Sharma in his evidence stated: It may take one year for an unconfined dead body buried under ground to turn into a skeleton but I am not sure about it. 60. Dr. K.S. Narayan Reddy, M.D., D.C.P., Ph. D., F.A.M.S., F.I.M.S.A., F.A.F. Sc, F.I.A.M.S. Professor of Forensic Medicine and retired Principal of Osmania Medical College, Hyderabad in his Book "The Essentials of Forensic Medicine And Toxicology" has observed: Skeletonisation: The time required for Skeletonisation varies considerably. In the case of an exposed body, flies, maggots, ants, cock-, roaches, rats, dogs, jackals, vultures, etc., may reduce the body to a skeleton within a few days. When the body is in the water, it may be attacked by fishes, crabs, etc., which reduce the body to a skeleton in a few days. In an unconfined body buried in a shallow grave,, putrefaction is delayed to a moderate extent. In a deeply buried body, the lower temperature, the exclusion pf air, absence of animal life, etc., markedly delay decomposition. The important factors are seasonal, climatic variation, the amount of soil water, the access of air, and the acidity or otherwise of the soil water. In India, an uncoffined buried body is reduced to a skeleton within about a year. Burried bones may decay at different rates, e.g. neutral soil may not destroy the skeleton at all. Acidic soil may cause decay in about 25 to 100 years.. In bodies placed in airtight coffins, decay process may not occur for several decades. In a hot climate, bones on the ground surface may decay in 5 to 10 years. The protein content of the bones decomposes. As the bones contain largely inorganic material, they will crumble, rather than decompose. Flat bones and the bones of the infants and old, breakdown faster. 61. The skeleton recovered from the khud/cattle shedin occupation of Bahadur Singh, could not have been of body buried for only 20 days. 62. In view of the evidence on record, the identify of the skeleton which was found in the cattle shed of the deceased is question mark. It cannot be said with certainty that this was the skeleton of deceased Narain Dass. 63. 62. In view of the evidence on record, the identify of the skeleton which was found in the cattle shed of the deceased is question mark. It cannot be said with certainty that this was the skeleton of deceased Narain Dass. 63. To concludein view of the evidence on record, the retracted extra judicial confession made by the accused is surrounded by suspicious circumstances and is not proved to be trustworthy. This confessionin the absence of corroborative evidence, cannot be used to convict the accused. The identity of the skeleton too is not proved to be that of Narain Dass. (ii) Recovery of Belcha (Shovel) and slightly burnt shirt at the instance of the accused. 64. According to the prosecution case, Belcha (Shovel) and two shirts one of which was slightly burnt was allegedly recovered at the instance of the accused from the Dogari of Shyam Lal. Firstly, there is nothing on the record to show that Belcha or the shirts are in any way linked with the commission of any offence. Secondly, so far Belcha Ext. Pll is concerned, it is the evidence of Roshan Lal (PW 8) that accused while in custody of the police led the Police Party to Dogari of Shyam Lal in village Thala and produced two shirts and burnt Belcha and thereafter, according to this witness, the police party came to the site of burnt house and took into possession one Jhabhal and Kassi vide memo Exhibit PL. In cross-examination, he categorically stated that when burnt debris was searched initially, some house-hold utensils and agricultural implements were retrieved from the debris. It is his evidence that Belcha Ext. Pll, Jhabhal Ext. PI 2 and Kassi Ext. P13 had already been retrieved from the debris. He further stated. "The accused had taken the Belcha to the Dogari of Shyam Lal. The villagers who had joined the salvaging operation were knowing that these articles had already been retrieved from the debris. Shri Saindi Ram and Sh. Jagat Singh the President and the Vice President of the Panchayat were also knowing about it". It, thus, is apparent that burnt Belcha was retrieved from the debris by the villagers and was taken to the Dogari to the house of Shyam Lalwhere accused had admittedly taken a temporary shelter after his house was gutted in fire. Jagat Singh the President and the Vice President of the Panchayat were also knowing about it". It, thus, is apparent that burnt Belcha was retrieved from the debris by the villagers and was taken to the Dogari to the house of Shyam Lalwhere accused had admittedly taken a temporary shelter after his house was gutted in fire. In the circumstances, recovery of this Belcha at the Dogari of Shyam Lalis of no consequence. So far shirts Exts. P9 and P10 are concerned, they are not identified to be that of the accused or deceased. It is true that as per the report of Chemical Examiner one of the shirt was slightly burnt but then, as already noticed, the shirt is not identified to be that of the accused. The report of the Chemical Examiner Exhibit PW/2 shows that one of the shirts sent to the Chemical Examiner of blue colour contained human blood but admittedly, this shirt was found near the body from which the skeleton was recovered and is not linked with the accused. The second shirt which was taken into possession from the Dogari has not been produced in evidence. In the circumstances, the recovery of Belcha Ext. Pll and slightly burnt shirt from the Dogari of Shyam Lal, at the instance of the accused, is of no significance. Such recovery does not connect the accused with the commission of any offence. (iii) Motive. 65. The case of the prosecution is that accused killed his father as he was disinherited by his father by a will which was executed by him fifteen days prior to the occurrence. Firstly, there is nothing on the record to show that accused was aware of the execution of the will. Secondlyin a report lodged by the deceased against the accused for an offence punishable under Section 325, the deceased stated that he had given the share in his property to Parkash Chand on May 14, 1996 as required by Parkash Chand. If that be so, then there is no question of Parkash Chand being excluded by his father from his properties. It is true that relations between the deceased and his son, the accused, were strained after the marriage of the accused in the year 1996. If that be so, then there is no question of Parkash Chand being excluded by his father from his properties. It is true that relations between the deceased and his son, the accused, were strained after the marriage of the accused in the year 1996. It is also true that in the will Exhibit PJ, a recital is made that Parkash Chand lived separately from the deceased and harassed him and that he tried to kill him twice but this in itself is no proof that it was the accused who killed his father and set the house on fire. At best, it raises a suspicion on the accused but mere suspicion is no substitute for proof. There is long distance between the suspicion and legal proof which must be covered by acceptable and trustworthy evidence. Reference may be made to Jaharlal Das v. State of Orissa, (1991) 3 SCC 27. The Apex Court in para 9 of the judgment observed: 9. It may not be necessary to refer to other decisions of this Court except to bear in mind a caution that in cases depending largely upon circumstantial evidence, there is always a danger that the conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof and such suspicion howsoever strong cannot be allowed to take the' place of proof. The Court has to be watchful and ensure that conjectures and suspicion do not take the place of legal proof. 66. The inevitable conclusion is there is no evidence against the accused Appellant apart from unreliable uncorroborated retracted extra judicial confession. This confessionin our view, cannot be made basis to convict the accused. We have no hesitation to conclude that the prosecution has failed to prove any case against the accused. No other point is urged before us. 67. In result, the appeal is allowed. The prosecution fails and is dismissed. The conviction of the accused is set-aside. He stands acquitted. The accused shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case. The fine if realized be refunded back to him. 68. Before parting, we would like to record our appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered to us in this case by Mr. Anup Chitkara Advocate.