JUDGMENT : B. Panigrahi, J. - These three appeals involve common questions of fact and law therefore, those are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. All the accused persons in Sessions Trial No. 131/1 of 1991/92 who were prosecuted under Sections 302/201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code have assailed the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadrak whereby they were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. 3. The essential facts leading to filing of these appeals are as follows: That on 27.2.1991 at about 3.30 p.m. one Prafulla Kumar Palel (P.W.1) lodged a written report vide Ext. 1 before the Inspector-in-Charge. Bhadrak Town Police Station stating that the deceased Ramesh Chandra Sahu ' Babula was engaged as a servant since his childhood. P.W.1 was having a video set which he used to give on rent to Ors. through the deceased. The Appellant Rajkumar Jena approached in the evening at about 7 p.m. on 24.2.1991 to lend the video set through the deceased. Accordingly the deceased went to the Appellant Rajkumar Jena with the video set and also the T.V. Screen. On the following day, while, the deceased did not return with the video set. therefore, some suspicion lurked in the mind of P.W.1. In order to find out the whereabouts of the deceased, he went to the house of the Appellant Rajkumar Jena, who expressed his ignorance about the deceased. On 27.2.1991 morning when again the Appellant Rajkumar Jena was approached to inform the whereabouts of deceased, he told that the video set was kept in the house of other Appellant Prahallad Maharana in village Mirzapur. All of them went to the house of Appellant Prahallad Moharana. Prahallad Moharana opened the room where the video set was kept under lock & key. Subsequently they gathered that the key was with Appellant Rajendra Maharana. Thereafter, all the Appellants were asked about the whereabouts of Babula to which they allegedly made an extra judicial confession to the effect that after watching the film in the video set at about 3.00 a.m. on 26.2.1991 all of them went towards the Mirzapur Municipality field for answering the call of nature. It had further revealed that they strangulated the deceased by a shirt and also by thrilling. They buried the dead body there in the field. On receipt of the information. It had further revealed that they strangulated the deceased by a shirt and also by thrilling. They buried the dead body there in the field. On receipt of the information. P.W.9, the Junior S.I. of Town PS. took up the investigation being directed by the Inspector-in-charge. He examined the witnesses at the police station, sent requisition to the S.D.M. to exhume the dead body. P.W.9 also arrested all the Appellants on the same day at 4.30 p.m. who were with P.W.1 the informant of this case. The Investigating Officer then proceeded to Mirzapur, seized the video set alongwith stabilizer and T.V. set and also a spade (M.O.I) at the instance of Appellant Prahallad Maharana while in custody as per seizure list. Ext. 3. He also seized Anr. spade (M.O.II) on the basis of the discovery statement by the Appellant Rajendra Maharana from his house under seizure list. Ext. 4. While in custody the Appellants Rajendra Maharana and Prahallad Maharana led the police party in presence of the witnesses to Mirzapur Municipality field and pointed out the place where the dead body was lying burried. The dead body was exhumed in presence of witnesses and the Executive Magistrate (P.W.6). Inquest was held vide Ext. 6. Thereafter the dead body was sent for post mortem examination to the District Headquarters Hospital. The video set along with the T.V. screen was handed over the P.W.1- on execution of a zimanama vide Ext. 2. During investigation a spot map was also prepared. The Investigating Officer after having received the post mortem report, submitted the charge-sheet to the Court. . 4. The plea of the Appellants was denial of occurrence and they further pleaded to have been falsely implicated in this case. 5. The prosecution, in order to bring home the charge to the accused persons, had examined 9 witnesses. The evidence of P.Ws. 1, 3 and 7 was utilised for extra-judicial confession alleged to have been made by the Appellants. P.W.2 stated to have seen the deceased going together with Rajkumar Jena on 25.2.1991. P.Ws. 4 & 6 are the witnesses to the inquest. P.W.5 is a villager of Mirzapur and stated about Appellant Rajendra Maharana, to have taken the key. P.W.8 was the Autopsy Surgeon who conducted the post mortem examination on the deceased Babula. P.W.9 was the Investigating Officer. 6. P.Ws. 4 & 6 are the witnesses to the inquest. P.W.5 is a villager of Mirzapur and stated about Appellant Rajendra Maharana, to have taken the key. P.W.8 was the Autopsy Surgeon who conducted the post mortem examination on the deceased Babula. P.W.9 was the Investigating Officer. 6. There is no direct eye witness to prove the prosecution story against the Appellants. Therefore, the prosecution case is based only on circumstantial evidence. The entire chain of events sought to prove the guilt of the accused must be firmly established so as to exclude any other hypothesis consistent with their innocence. In other words, if any link in the chain of events is missing, then the prosecution case cannot be said to have been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. 7. In this case, the prosecution has only relied upon the following circumstances namely: (i) The deceased Babula went with the Appellant Rajkumar Jena together with video set and also T.V. screen on 25.2.1991; (ii) The recovery of video set and also T.V. screen alongwith stabilizer at the instance of accused Prahallad Maharana; (iii) All the Appellants were said to have made extra judicial confession admitting their guilt before P.Ws. 1, 3, & 7; (iv) On the discovery statement of the Appellants, the dead body of Babula was exhumed from Mirzapur Municipal ground. It is indubitably true that if all the circumstances are proved by the prosecution then the chain of events connecting the Appellants with the crime would be complete. In other words, if it is found that any links in the chain of events as enumerated above are missing, it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 8. Turning to the evidence of P.W.1, it appears that Appellant RajKumar Jena went together with deceased Ramesh Chandra Sahu ' Babula with V.C.P., Television set or. 25.2.1991 at about 7.00 p.m. which was also seen by P.W.2, Jagat Lenka. While examining the evidence of P.W.1, it appears that he stated in Court that on 25.2.1991 at about 7 p.m. the deceased went with video set from his house towards the house of Appellant Rajkumar Jena and at that time the Appellant Rajkumar Jena was not present. However, he stated to have learnt that the deceased was in the company of Rajkumar Jena and this-was informed by P.W.2. However, he stated to have learnt that the deceased was in the company of Rajkumar Jena and this-was informed by P.W.2. Jagat Lenka on the following day, but he did not state during investigation that he was informed about this fact by P.W.2. Jagat Lenka. Therefore, the statement of P.W.1 that he learnt that Jagat Lenka had seen the Appellant Rajkumar in the company of the deceased appears to be a subsequent development. In the FIR also there has been no description that P.W.2 had stated to have seen Appellant Rajkumar Jena in the company of the deceased. P.W.9. the Investigating Officer, has also made a clear admission that P.W.1 did not mention before him about Jagat Lenka having told him that he saw the deceased in the company of the Appellant Raj Kumar Jena with video set. Therefore, in this background the fact that Jagat Lenka said to him to have seen Appellant Rajkumar Jena in the company of the deceased appears to be a subsequent development and no credibility should be attached to such statement. 9. On examining the evidence of P.W. 2, Jagat Lenka, it appears that he disclosed to have seen Rajkumar Jena in the company of the deceased near Biswanath Kasiprasad Petrol Pump while they were proceeding towards by-pass. From his deposition, it does not, however, appears as to when he had seen the deceased in the company of the Appellant Rajkumar Jena. It is elicited that he narrated this fact only on the morning of 27.2.1991 to P.W.1. whereas P.W.1 has stated to have learnt it from P.W.2 that he had seen the deceased in the company of Rajkumar on 25.2.1991 evening. Even assuming his statement is true to the effect that he had seen the deceased on 25.2.1991 in the evening, but the prosecution has not been able to prove that the Appellant Rajkumar Jena was in the company of the deceased within the proximity of time of occurrence. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.2 does not so much help the prosecution in establishing the guilt against Appellant Rajkumar. 10. The prosecution then relied upon the circumstance of extra-judicial confession alleged to have been made by the Appellants before P.Ws. 1, 3 & 7. Turning to the evidence of P.W.1 it is said that the Appellants Prahallad Maharana, Rajkumar Jena and Rajendra Maharana had confessed before him in the presence of Rajendra Dash (P.W.3). 10. The prosecution then relied upon the circumstance of extra-judicial confession alleged to have been made by the Appellants before P.Ws. 1, 3 & 7. Turning to the evidence of P.W.1 it is said that the Appellants Prahallad Maharana, Rajkumar Jena and Rajendra Maharana had confessed before him in the presence of Rajendra Dash (P.W.3). But in cross examination, it was bright out that he did not specifically utter the name of Rajendra Dash in whose presence the Appellants are said to have made an extra judicial confession. From the evidence of P.W.3 it appears that he did not belong to the village of the Appellants. No where it has been stated that prior to this incident, he knew all the Appellants. His testimony however disclosed that on 27.2.1991 while he was talking with P.W.1 (informant), P.W.2, Jagat Lenka came and told them to have seen the deceased in the company of Appellant Rajkumar Jena with the video set. It has been already held while discussing statement of Jagat Lenka (P.W.2) that since it was not narrated in the FIR, so also P.W.1 did not whisper the said fact in Section 161. Code of Criminal Procedure statement, it was therefore, taken to be a subsequent development. Extra-judicial confession by itself is a weak piece of evidence and without corroboration from any other evidence, implicit reliance should not be placed on it. 11. So far as the seizure of spade is concerned, we find that it cannot be regarded as a seizure u/s 27 of the Evidence Act. From the discovery statement although it is described about the seizure of the spades, but since the prosecution has not been able to establish any link that the same were used for the commission of offence, therefore, even if said seizure was effected from them, it does not help the prosecution in any manner. 12. The prosecution then relied upon Anr. circumstance with regard to discovery of the dead-body at the instance of the Appellants while they were in police custody u/s 27 of the Evidence Act. Section 27 of the Evidence Act is an exception to Sections 25 & 26 of the Evidence Act. Any confession to a police officer is hit under Sections 25 & 26 of the Evidence Act. Section 27 of the Evidence Act is an exception to Sections 25 & 26 of the Evidence Act. Any confession to a police officer is hit under Sections 25 & 26 of the Evidence Act. But while the accused in Police custody made a discovery statement on the basis of which if an incriminating material is unearthed, that can be used against him, but for using such statement, there must have been a discovery memo which should be recorded by the Investigating Officer. It is disquieting to note that there has been no discovery memo to the effect that the accused while in police custody led them to the place where they burried the dead-body of Babula and that in their presence the dead-body was recovered. In the absence of such recovery memo, it cannot be said that there was a statement u/s 27 of the Evidence Act. 13. Now we have to independently examine the evidence of P.Ws. 4 & 6. From the evidence of P.W.4 it has appeared that the Executive Magistrate asked the Appellant Rajendra Maharana to which he replied that some Jena had killed the deceased by throttling. It is an exculpatory statement involving some other Jena. Therefore, even if such statement is accepted on its face value, it does not however connect the Appellants with the crime. It has been further brought out in cross-examination that such statement to the effect that Appellant Rajendra Maharana told that some Jena had killed the deceased was not made by P.W.4 curing investigation. In the above background, the statement of P.W.4 does not inspire any credibility. P.W.6 has been examined by the prosecution to provs the seizure of the dead-body at the instance of the Appellants. But on seeing the evidence of P.W.6. it noes not appear that the Appellants showed the dead-body to the Executive Magistrate for exhuming. 14. So far as recovery of the T.V. set from the house of Appellant Prahallad Maharana is concerned, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 3 & 7. Although P.Ws. But on seeing the evidence of P.W.6. it noes not appear that the Appellants showed the dead-body to the Executive Magistrate for exhuming. 14. So far as recovery of the T.V. set from the house of Appellant Prahallad Maharana is concerned, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 3 & 7. Although P.Ws. 1, 3 & 7 have stated in Court that it was recovered from the house of Prahallad Maharana and it was seized by them and thereafter handed over to P.W.1, but no steps were taken by the Investigating Agency to put the V.C.P. and T.V. set in the test identification parade to prove that it belonged to P.W.1, nor any steps were taken also to produce it in Court during trial. There has been no document to show that it actually belonged to P.W.1 or his wife. On asking the question to P.W.9 by the defence, P.W.9 gave a strange reply that since it was not necessary according to him as the ownership was not in doubt, he did not effect seizure of documents. If Investigating Officer would have taken proper steps to effect the seizure of such document and production of the T.V. set, in course of evidence such evidence could have been collected to link up the Appellant Prahallad Maharana. P.W.7 did not whisper a word regarding the seizure of video set from the house of Prahallad Maharana. In absence of such evidence, the recovery of Television, even if true, does not have any nexus with the crime. 15. Mr. Mohanty the learned Addl. Government Advocate has relied upon the decision reported in Baiju alias Bharosa Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, On a careful reading of the judgment, we find, the ratio decided by the Supreme Court in the above case has no application to the present facts, inasmuch as prosecution did not make attempt to establish that the video which was recovered from the house of the Appellant Prahallad Maharana was the subject matter of theft and in the absence of such evidence, even assuming such recovery was made, it did not have any link with the Appellants, and, therefore, we feel the above cited case does not help the prosecution in any manner. 16. As per the above discussion, we found that the prosecution was unable to link up the Appellants with the crime. 16. As per the above discussion, we found that the prosecution was unable to link up the Appellants with the crime. All the circumstances pointing to the guilt of the Appellants have not been established by the prosecution. We therefore, acquit the Appellants of the charges under Sees. 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Consequently, the appeals succeed. Accordingly the conviction and sentence are hereby set aside. The bail bonds, if any. furnished by the Appellants are deemed to have been cancelled. P.K. Misra. J. 17. I agree. Final Result : Allowed