Judgment ( 1. ) APPELLANTS Rekhlal and Kangli, the accused persons in this case, have been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by Sessions Judge, Balaghat, vide judgment dated 12-12-89 in Sessions Trial No. 114/89 for causing the death of Jungli, aged about 48 years, the deceased in this case. Appellants have been found guilty of causing fatal injuries on the deceased by means of a "lathi" in the intervening night of 11/12-7-89 in their house situated at Village Budi, District Balaghat. ( 2. ) BRIEFLY stated the facts giving rise to this appeal are as under :-Both the appellants, the deceased Jungli and the material witnesses belong to Village Budi, within the limit of Kiranapur Police Station in Balaghat District. Deceased Jungli was father of Rekhlal (appellant No. 1) and real brother of Kangli (appellant No. 2 ). Since the wife of Jungli had deserted him about 8/9 years ago, he used to live with Rekhlal (appellant No. 1 ). Wife of Rekhlal (appellant No. 1) had also allegedly deserted him about two years prior to the date of incident because of her quarrels with Jungli and she had shifted to her parents house with her daughter. Kangli (appellant No. 2) lived in another portion of the same house and believed Jungli to be a sorcerer. On 19-7-89, the appellants met Chamarulal (P. W. 1) and informed him that Jungli was not seen since last 8/9 days and on the next day, i. e. , 20-7-89 appellants, alongwith Chamarulal (P. W. 1), went to the police station where Rekhlal (appellant No. 1) reported about the disappearance of Jungli which was recorded in the Sanha No. 756 vide Ex. P-18 by Likhanlal (P. W. 5), Head Constable. On 21-7-89, Gendlal (P. W. 2) informed Chamarulal (P. W. 1) about the rumour of the discovery of a dead body whereupon Chamarulal (P. W. 1) summoned the appellants to his house at about 10:00 a. m. and on his asking in the presence of Gendlal (P. W. 2) and 2/3 persons, they allegedly confessed that after murdering Jungli they had thrown his dead body into a river also known as a "narsingh Nala". A thorough search for the body was made by them but they failed to locate the same. A thorough search for the body was made by them but they failed to locate the same. On 22-7-89 Sub-Inspector R. K. Mishra (P. W. 9) reached Village Budi, at about 5:00 a. m. and in the house of Chamarulal (P. W. 1) asked the appellants about Jungli on which they reiterated the incident. Again, search was made at all the places in the presence of appellants but the body of Jungli could not be traced. It is alleged that in the evening of the same day at about 5:00 p. m. , Rekhlal (appellant No. 1) made a discovery statement, Ex. P-1, to Sub-Inspector R. K. Mishra (P. W. 9) that he and Kangli (appellant No. 2) had caused injuries to Jungli in the kitchen of their house by means of a "lathi" and when he died they buried his body into a pit at Village Khod, Seoni in the field known as "behar Marrar Ka Khet". He also disclosed that the pit was dug by them with the help of a pickaxe and after burrying the body they had covered the pit with leaves, etc. Thereafter, Rekhlal (appellant No. 1) took R. K. Mishra (P. W. 9) and other witnesses and showed the place where he had buried the body of Jungli. ( 3. ) ON 23-7-89 Sub-Inspector R. K. Mishra (P. W. 9), after obtaining permission of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on his request letter, Ex. P-21, for exhuming the body, took Dr. S. C. Meshram (P. W. 6) and Tehsildar to the place where the body was buried. The appellants allegedly dug out the body of Jungli in their presence and other witnesses. Ex. P-3 is the Panchnama of the body and it was identified by the Panch witnesses vide Panchnama, Ex. P-6. The photographs of the pit and the body of Jungli are Exs. P-23 to P-27. After the discovery of body of Jungli, Sub-Inspector R. K. Mishra (P. W. 9) recorded discovery statement, Ex. P-10, of Rekhlal (appellant No. 1) and seized a pickaxe at his behest from one of the rooms of his house vide Ex. P-1 1. He also prepared seizure memo of "lathi", Ex. P-15, which was handed over to him by Kotwar Arjun. Ex. P-12 is the seizure memo of blood stained soil from the kitchen of the house of Rekhlal (appellant No. 1) and Ex. P-1 1. He also prepared seizure memo of "lathi", Ex. P-15, which was handed over to him by Kotwar Arjun. Ex. P-12 is the seizure memo of blood stained soil from the kitchen of the house of Rekhlal (appellant No. 1) and Ex. P-13 is the seizure memo of his Baniyans. Ex. P-14 is the seizure of the Baniyans of Kangli (appellant No. 2 ). Sub-Inspector R. K. Mishra (P. W. 9) prepared a Dehati Nalishi, Ex. P-27, at Village Budi, itself and its Marg intimation, Ex. P-23. On the basis of Exs. P-27 and P-33, First Information Report (Ex. P-23) was recorded and crime was registered at Police Station, Kiranapur. ( 4. ) DR. S. C. Meshram (P. W. 6) conducted the post mortem on the body of deceased Jungli. He, in his report, Ex. P-20, gave an opinion that the body was highly decomposed and death was as a result of haemorrhage and shock due to injuries on vital organs. He found 3rd to 7th ribs of the left side of chest fractured which were possibly caused by hard and blunt object. ( 5. ) THE appellants in their defence pleaded that they were innocent and have been falsely implicated. According to them, since they could not pay Rs. 5,000/- to Chamarulal (P. W. 1) as demanded by him, he got them falsely implicated in connection with the death of Jungli. ( 6. ) THE conviction of the appellants is based on circumstantial evidence only. The Trial Court based the conviction on the following circumstances :- (i) Motive. (ii) Lodging of false report, Ex. P-18, of disappearance of Jungli. (iii) Extra-judicial confession of the appellants before Chamarulal (P. W. 1) and Gendlal (P. W. 2 ). (iv) Recovery of the body of deceased Jungli on the basis of discovery statement, Ex. P-1, of Rekhlal (appellant No. 1 ). (v) Seizure of pickaxe, at the instance of Rekhlal (appellant No. 1), seizure of "lathi", seizure of one Baniyans each from the appellants and seizure of soil from the kitchen of the house of Rekhlal (appellant No. 1) and the opinion of Dr. S. C. Meshram (P. W. 6) that there were blood stains on each of the Baniyans and soil. ( 7. S. C. Meshram (P. W. 6) that there were blood stains on each of the Baniyans and soil. ( 7. ) THE conviction of appellants was challenged by the learned Counsel on the ground that the Trial Court ought to have disbelieved the evidence of prosecution against them. It was urged by the learned Counsel that the evidence against the appellants is so false and weak that it cannot be relied upon for their conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 8. ) WE have heard the arguments on behalf of appellants and respondent-State and have perused the available records and are, however, unable to agree with the Trial Court that the prosecution has proved the guilt of appellants beyond all reasonable doubt. ( 9. ) THE law relating to circumstantial evidence has been stated by the Honourable Supreme Court in numerous decisions. It is needless to refer to all of them as the law on the point is well settled. In State of Rajasthan v. Kalyan Singh, AIR 1971 SC 2018 , the Honourable Supreme Court held as under :-"in a case resting on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances put forward must be satisfactorily proved and those circumstances should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again those circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. " ( 10. ) THE evidence of motive against the appellants is very weak. Chamarulal (P. W. 1) has deposed that the wife of Rekhlal (appellant No. 1) had deserted him about two years ago prior to the date of incident and she was living in her parents house with them and her daughter. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever regarding quarrel between Rekhlal (appellant o. 1) and deceased Jungli and, therefore, it is very difficult to believe that Rekhlal (appellant No. 1) would kill his father after two years of his wife leaving him. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever regarding quarrel between Rekhlal (appellant o. 1) and deceased Jungli and, therefore, it is very difficult to believe that Rekhlal (appellant No. 1) would kill his father after two years of his wife leaving him. Furthermore, except for the statement of Chamarulal (P. W. 1) that Kangli (appellant No. 2) used to call his brother Jungli a sorcerer, there is no evidence in this regard. Chamarulal (P. W. 1) has admitted in his cross-examination that no one else in the village thought Jungli as a sorcerer and he is also unable to say as to when Kangli (appellant No. 2) referred before him Jungli as a sorcerer. The evidence of motive against the appellants is fallacious on the face of it and cannot be relied upon. ( 11. ) IT is a fact that Rekhlal (appellant No. 1) did lodge a report, Ex. P-18, about the disappearance of his father Jungli, but it cannot be said that the same was false. Admittedly, deceased Jungli had disappeared from the village and therefore, it was natural on the part of the appellants to first inform Chamarulal (P. W. 1), a Sarpanch of the village, and then on his advise Rekhlal (appellant No. 1) lodged a report, Ex. P-18, on 20-7-89. Chamarulal (P. W. 1) had also accompanied the appellants for lodging the report. It has also come in the evidence of Chamarulal (P. W. 1) and Gendlal (P. W. 2) that, on the basis of alleged extra-judicial confession of the appellants about throwing of the body of Jungli by them into a river after murdering him, everybody searched for the body but could not trace the same. On 23-7-89, even Sub-Inspector R. K. Mishra (P. W. 9) searched for the body of Jungli for the whole day in the presence of appellants and witnesses but he too failed to locate the same. Thus, the lodging of report, Ex. P-18,of the disappearance of Jungli by Rekhlal (appellant No. 1) cannot be considered as a circumstance against him and Kangli (appellant No. 2 ). ( 12. ) REGARDING the evidence of extra-judicial confession prosecution has examined witnesses Chamarulal (P. W. 1) and Gendlal (P. W. 2 ). Thus, the lodging of report, Ex. P-18,of the disappearance of Jungli by Rekhlal (appellant No. 1) cannot be considered as a circumstance against him and Kangli (appellant No. 2 ). ( 12. ) REGARDING the evidence of extra-judicial confession prosecution has examined witnesses Chamarulal (P. W. 1) and Gendlal (P. W. 2 ). Chamarulal (P. W. 1) has deposed in his evidence that on 21-7-89 Gendlal (P. W. 2) informed him about the rumour of the discovery of a dead body whereupon he summoned the appellants to his house at about 10:00 a. m. and on his asking about the whereabout of Jungli in the presence of Gendlal (P. W. 2) Dukli, Bhaiyalal and Netlal they confessed that after murdering Jungli they had thrown his body into a river also known as "narsingh Nala". It has also come in the evidence of Chamarulal (P. W. 1) that despite of thorough search by them they could not locate the body. In the cross-examination Chamarulal (P. W. 1) has deposed that the appellants had reached his house at 7:30 a. m. and Kangli (appellant No. 2) was the first to confess. Chamarulal (P. W. 1) has also deposed that while returning from "narsingh Nala" at about 10:00 a. m. after the search had failed, he again asked the appellants at village chauraha in front of other villagers on which they reiterated the same confession. On the other hand, Gendlal (P. W. 2) has deposed in his evidence that on 21-7-89 at about 8:00 a. m. at his instance Chamarulal (P. W. I ), Dukli and Bhaiyalal went to "narsingh Nala" to search for the body of Jungli as there was rumour in the village about the discovery of a dead body near "narsingh Nala" but they could not locate the same. Gendlal (P. W. 2) has also deposed that while returning they found Rekhlal (appellant No. 1) sitting in a house near the "narsingh Nala" and Kangli (appellant No. 2) roaming at a place near the "narsingh Nala" and it was at that place both the appellants on their asking confessed that after murdering Jungli they had thrown the body into "narsingh Nala". Gendlal (P. W. 2) has also deposed in his evidence that Rekhlal (appellant No. 1) and not Kangli (appellant No. 2) was the first to confess. Gendlal (P. W. 2) has also deposed in his evidence that Rekhlal (appellant No. 1) and not Kangli (appellant No. 2) was the first to confess. Surprisingly, neither Chamarulal (P. W. 1) nor Gendlal (P. W. 2) asked the appellants as to how and why they murdered Jungli. Thus, in view of the aforesaid substantial discrepancies regarding the place, time and the manner in which the confession is said to have been made, it is very difficult for us to believe the extra-judicial confession which has been retracted by the appellants. Moreover, the confession allegedly made by the appellants has admittedly not led to any discovery. There is also nothing on record to show that appellants had any reason to take Chamarulal (P. W. 1) and Gendlal (P. W. 2) into confidence and believe that they would save them from trouble. We are not impressed with the evidence of Chamarulal (P. W. 1) and Gendlal (P. W. 2) that the appellants made any extra-judicial confession to them, ( 13. ) ACCORDING to the prosecution, on 22-7-89 Sub-Inspector R. K. Mishra (P. W. 9) reached Village Budi, at about 5:00 a. m. and in the house of Chamarulal (P. W. 1) asked the appellants about Jungli on which they reiterated the incident. A thorough search was made at all the places in the presence of appellants but the body of Jungli could not be traced. It is alleged that in the evening of the same day at about 5:00 p. m. Rekhlal (appellant No. 1) made a discovery statement, Ex. P-1, to Sub-Inspector R. K. Mishra (P. W. 9) that he and Kangli (appellant No. 2) had caused injuries to Jungli in the kitchen of their house by means of a "lathi" and when he died they buried his body into a pit at Village Khod, Seoni in the field known as "behar Marrar Ka Khet". He also disclosed that a pit was dug by them with the help of a pickaxe and after burying the dead body, they had covered the pit with leaves, etc, Thereafter, Rekhlal (appellant No. 1) took Sub-Inspector R. K. Mishra (P. W. 9) and other witnesses and showed the place where he had buried the body of Jungli. The discovery statement, Ex. P-1, bear the signatures of Chamarulal (P. W. 1) and Roshanlal. The discovery statement, Ex. P-1, bear the signatures of Chamarulal (P. W. 1) and Roshanlal. It does not bear the signature or the thumb impression of Rekhlal (appellant No. 1 ). The absence of signature or the thumb impression of accused Rekhlal (appellant No. 1) on the disclosure statement recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act detracts materially from the authenticity and the reliability of the disclosure statement. The said view was also taken by the Honourable Supreme Court in Jackaran Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1995 SC 2345 . It has come in the evidence of Sub-Inspector R. K. Mishra (P. W. 9) that immediately after reaching Village Budi, at 5:00 a. m. on 22-7-89, he had asked the appellants about Jungli on which they stated that after murdering him they had thrown his dead body into a river. Sub-Inspector R. K Mishra (P. W. 9) had admitted in his evidence that he searched at all the places in the presence of appellants and witnesses but he could not trace the body of Jungli. It was only at about 5:00 p. m. that Rekhlal (appellant No. 1) is said to have made a discovery statement, Ex. P-1, which allegedly led to the discovery of the dead body of Jungli. Gendlal (P. W. 2) had deposed in Paragraph 3 of his evidence that the police had beaten the appellants. The discovery statement, Ex. P-1, admittedly does not bear either the signature or the thumb impression of Rekhlal (appellant No. 1), as already stated above. It seems that the body of Jungli was discovered at the time of search and discovery statement, Ex. P-1, was prepared subsequently. We have already disbelieved the evidence of Chamarulal (P. W. 1) with regard to the evidence of motive and extra-judicial confession. We are also not inclined to believe his evidence with regard to discovery statement, Ex. P-1, either. The other witness Roshanlal has not been examined by the prosecution. The evidence of discovery of the body of Jungli on the basis of discovery statement, Ex. P-1, is, thus, unworthy of any credit. ( 14. We are also not inclined to believe his evidence with regard to discovery statement, Ex. P-1, either. The other witness Roshanlal has not been examined by the prosecution. The evidence of discovery of the body of Jungli on the basis of discovery statement, Ex. P-1, is, thus, unworthy of any credit. ( 14. ) THE evidence of seizure of pickaxe at the instance of Rekhlal (appellant No. 1), seizure of "lathi", seizure of one Baniyans each from the appellants and seizure of soil from the kitchen of the house of Rekhlal (appellant No. 1) does not connect the appellants in any manner with the death of Jungli. Admittedly, there is absolutely no evidence on record to suggest that human blood was found on any of the said articles. Dr. S. C. Meshram (P. W. 6) is neither a Chemical Analyst nor a Serologist. Needless to mention that pickaxe is not a weapon of offence whereas "lathi" which is said to be a weapon of offence has not been seized at the instance of appellants. The same was handed over to Sub-Inspector R. K. Mishra (P. W. 9) by Kotwar Arjun. The incident is said to have taken place in the intervening night of 11/12-7-89 whereas the seizure of Baniyans from the appellants was made on their arrest on 23-7-89. It is difficult to believe that the appellants, who had allegedly buried the body of Jungli without the knowledge of anyone, would continue to retain blood stained Baniyans with them. ( 15. ) FOR the above reasons, we, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the conviction of appellants under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of imprisonment for life awarded thereunder. They are acquitted of the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. They are already in jail since last 13 years. The appellants be set at liberty forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.