K. C. BHANU, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 16-7-2001, in Sessions Case No. 98/2000 on the file of the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupati, whereby the accused therein were convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302, rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 120-B and rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, with a direction to run the sentences concurrently. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case in brief are as follows. The deceased Mangamma is the wife of A1. Two or three days prior to 12-6-1999 the deceased informed P. Ws. 1 and 2 that A1 threated to kill her. They promised the deceased that they would enquire with A1. Thereafter, for three days the deceased was not seen. Then P. W. 1 sent P. W. 2 to enquire with the parents of A1. The parents of A1 informed P. W. 2 that the deceased went to her parents house. P. Ws. 1 and 2 caused enquiry with the parents of the deceased, but it was informed to them that the deceased had not come there. P. W. 1 then lodged a report with Alipiri Police Station on 14-6-1999 at 6 p. m. on the basis of which a case was registered under the head woman missing . As the matter stood thus, on 16-6-1999 at about 9 a. m. , A1 went to P. W. 6-Village Administrative Officer of Settipalle village and made a detailed extra-judicial confession with him stating that he and A2 committed the murder of the deceased. P. W. 6 reduced the extra-judicial confession into writing. It was marked as Ex. P7. He handed over A1 and Ex. P7 to Alipiri Police. On the basis of Ex. P7 the section of law was altered. A1 made a confession again before the police also and showed the actual place where he buried the dead body of the deceased. Police got the dead body exhumed. The clothes of the deceased which were buried in a pit were seized at the instance of A1. Some gold ornaments belonging to the deceased were recovered from the mother of A1. After the inquest was over, P. W. 9 conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. Police got the dead body exhumed. The clothes of the deceased which were buried in a pit were seized at the instance of A1. Some gold ornaments belonging to the deceased were recovered from the mother of A1. After the inquest was over, P. W. 9 conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. He opined that the deceased died of asphyxia as a result of pressure over the neck and chest. After completion of investigation, P. W. 12 filed the charge-sheet. Charges under Sections 120-B, 302 and 201, IPC were framed against the accused. They denied their guilt. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P. Ws. 1 to 12 and marked Exs. P1 to P19, besides M. Os. 1 to 5. The trial Court after considering the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution successfully established the charges. Accordingly the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid by its judgment, dated 16-7-2001, questioning the legality and correctness whereof, the accused filed the present appeal. ( 3 ) THERE is no direct evidence. The entire case rests upon circumstantial evidence. The law about circumstantial evidence is well settled. The circumstantial evidence should be such as to point only to the guilt of the accused and the confession should exclude all other hypothesis except that of the guilt of the accused. The Supreme Court in a series of decisions, right from the decision of Hanumanth Govind Nargundkar v. State of M. P. , AIR 1952 SC 343 , till the recent decision in Anthony D souza v. State of Karnataka, (2003) 1 SCC 259 , has held that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following four tests, viz. , (1) the circumstantial evidence from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established, (2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing jurisdiction towards the guilt of the accused, (3) the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human possibility, the crime was committed by the accused and none else, (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should also be inconsistent with his innocence. ( 4 ) BEARING the above principles in mind, it has to be seen whether the prosecution has been able to make out a case for the charges levelled against the accused. To prove its case, the prosecution relied upon the following circumstances- (1) the death of the deceased was homicidal, (2) motive, (3) extra-judicial confession, (4) recovery of the dead body and clothes as pointed out by the accused, and (5) the conduct of the accused. To prove its case, the prosecution relied upon the following circumstances- (1) the death of the deceased was homicidal, (2) motive, (3) extra-judicial confession, (4) recovery of the dead body and clothes as pointed out by the accused, and (5) the conduct of the accused. ( 5 ) IT is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused that the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution at best may give rise to a suspicion that the accused committed the offence, that there was no reason for A1 to make extra-judicial confession before the V. A. O. , of some other village, especially such a lengthy confession, that since the place from where the recovery of the dead body and the clothes of the deceased was made had already been known to the police even prior to A1 actually showing them that place, as the police had requisitioned the services of the M. R. O. , and the Doctor before the dead body was exhumed, the recovery should not be taken as a circumstance against the accused, that there was absolutely no evidence to show the motive suggested by the prosecution to kill his own wife, that there was no evidence to show criminal conspiracy between A1 and A2, that there was also no evidence to show that A2 helped A1 in the commission of the offence or screening the offender from legal punishment, and that basing on the confession of the co-accused the trial Court convicted A2 which is impermissible under law, and hence the impugned judgment should be set aside. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor contended that the prosecution established that the death of the deceased was homicidal, that there was motive for A1 to kill his wife as he was suspecting her character, that A1 led the police to the actual spot where he buried the dead body and clothes, that there was nothing wrong in requisitioning the M. R. O. , and the Doctor before A1 led the police to the exact spot, and that when his wife was missing it was expected from A1 to lodge report with the police and the conduct of the accused points out the guilt to the accused, and so the appeal should be dismissed. She fairly conceded that there was no evidence to show the criminal conspiracy between A1 and A2 and that against A2 to prove the charges levelled against him. ( 6 ) P. W. 10-Mandal Revenue Officer, Tirupati Urban, conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased on 16-6-1999 after exhuming the dead body in the presence of mediators. Ex. P2 is the exhumation proceeding. Ex. P3 is the inquest report. The inquest mediators did not give any opinion as to the cause of the death of the deceased. P. W. 9 conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. He found the following injuries. 1. Contusion of 7 x 2 cm horizontal over front of neck over thyroid cartilage. 2. Contusion of 1 x 1 cm over inner aspect of middle of right leg. 3. Contusion of 2 x 1 cm vertical over front aspect of middle of left leg. 4. Contusion of 1 x 1 cm, x 3 cm above wound No. 3. 5. Scalp contusion of 5 x 4 cm over left occipital region. 6. Contusion of 20 x 10 cm over front of middle of chest with fracture sternum between attachments of 3rd and 4th ribs. ( 7 ) THE cause of death to the best of the knowledge of P. W. 9 was asphyxia due to pressure over neck and chest. Nothing has been elicited in his cross-examination to discredit his testimony with regard to the cause of death. Therefore, we hold that the prosecution has established that the death of the deceased was homicidal. ( 8 ) COMING to the next aspect, motive, in a murder case, especially in a case which is based on circumstantial evidence, one always looks for motive for the commission of such a heinous crime. Proof of motive generally lends corroboration to the prosecution case. However, the absence of motive or non-proof of motive does not always create a doubt on the prosecution case, if the circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution is otherwise considered reliable and trustworthy. ( 9 ) P. W. 1 is the President and P. W. 2 is the member of Vemalamma Mahila Mandal, Mangalam village. Deceased was also a member of that Mandal. They stated that the deceased informed them three or four days prior to her disappearance that A1 did not like her and was harassing her. ( 9 ) P. W. 1 is the President and P. W. 2 is the member of Vemalamma Mahila Mandal, Mangalam village. Deceased was also a member of that Mandal. They stated that the deceased informed them three or four days prior to her disappearance that A1 did not like her and was harassing her. He also threatened to kill her. This aspect was broadly found in Ex. P1-F. I. R. lodged by P. W. 1 on 14-6-1999. P. Ws. 1 and 2 are absolutely independent witnesses from whom nothing has been elicited in their cross-examination. The prosecution suggested that the deceased was having illicit intimacy with Bhaskara Reddy. To prove this aspect, P. Ws. 3 to 4 were examined. They did not support the prosecution. Ex. P7 is the extra-judicial confession made by A1 before P. W. 6. It shows that A1 stated that his wife was having extra-marital relationship with Bhaskara Reddy and that was the reason for him to do away with the life of his wife. So, if Ex. P7 is found to be true and voluntary, then, the prosecution can be said to have proved the motive. ( 10 ) THE value to be attached to an extra-judicial confession would depend upon the reliability of the person to whom it is made, interval between the occurrence and the confession, reproduction of the exact words of the person making confession to the crime, and the follow-up action which the person to whom the confession made. On this aspect, it is pertinent to refer to a decision in Thimma v. State of Mysore, AIR 1971 SC 1871 . The relevant portion in that judgment is reproduced below. "an unambiguous confession, if admissible in evidence, and free from suspicion suggesting its falsity, is a valuable piece of evidence which possesses a high probative force because it emanates directly from the person committing the offence. But in the process of proof of an alleged confession the Court has to be satisfied that it is voluntary, it does not appear to be the result of inducement. " ( 11 ) BEARING the above principles in mind, we will now proceed to ascertain the genuineness of Ex. P7. ( 12 ) A1 made the extra-judicial confession before P. W. 6. " ( 11 ) BEARING the above principles in mind, we will now proceed to ascertain the genuineness of Ex. P7. ( 12 ) A1 made the extra-judicial confession before P. W. 6. According to P. W. 6 on 16-6-1999 at about 8 a. m. , A1 came to his house and confessed to have committed the offence along with A2. A1 further told him that as the Mahila Mandali lodged a report with the police against him, there was no security for his life. He sought the help of P. W. 6. P. W. 6 promised to help him. P. W. 6 recorded the confession made by A1 in Ex. P7. It was a lengthy confession running into six pages. A1 stated that he caught his wife red handed when she was in a compromising position with Bhaskara Reddy. He advised her to eschew that extra-marital relationship, but she declined to do so. Then he decided to eliminate her. He sought the help of A2, his close friend. On 12-6-1999 A1 and A2 dug a pit in the "vanka" near the "thope" of Naidu at 7 p. m. A1 further confessed that in the midnight, A2 came to his house. A2 caught hold of the legs of the deceased tightly. A1 sat on the chest of the deceased, pressed her mouth and nose with one hand and her neck with another hand. A1 also pressed her neck with a stick. He tied a rope around her neck and tightened it. The deceased died. A1 and A2 carried the dead body and buried the dead body in the pit already dug by them. Thereafter they dug a small pit nearby and buried the clothes of the deceased in it. A1 removed the gold ornaments from the dead body of the deceased. He threw the "mangalasutram" in front of his house. He told his mother that the deceased abandoned the "mangalasutram" and left the house. ( 13 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the accused is that P. W. 6 was the Village Administrative Officer, Setipalle village whereas the village of A1 was Mangalam and, therefore, there was no reason for A1 to make such lengthy confession before the Village Administrative Officer of some other village which throws any amount of suspicion that it was not true and voluntary. He further contended that P. W. 6 is a stock witness for the police as he acted as mediator in 20 to 25 cases and so no reliance can be kept upon the evidence of this witness. ( 14 ) P. W. 6 stated that he had acquaintance with A1 as the latter purchased lands in Sattepalli village in 1982 and 1983 and later sold away those lands. P. W. 6 admitted that he acted as a Panch witness in 4 or 5 cases. One Panchanama in which he acted as a Panch witness was filed in 18 cases. P. W. 12 admitted in his cross-examination that P. W. 6 was cited as a witness in 25 to 30 cases. Thus it is clear that P. W. 6 was a witness in 4 to 5 cases and one Panchanama in which he acted as a Panch witness was filed in 18 cases. P. W. 6 is the Village Administrative Officer. Therefore, whenever he is called by the Police to act as Panch witness, he has to necessarily co-operate with the Police in discharge of his official duties. On the ground that P. W. 6 acted as a Panch witness in 5 to 6 cases, he cannot be said to be a stock witness. P. W. 12 clarified in his cross-examination that as P. W. 6 was the Village Administrative Officer and as nobody else came forward to act as mediator, he utilized the services of P. W. 6 to act as mediator. It does not matter much that A1 chose P. W. 6 instead of the Village Administrative Officer of Settipalli to make the confession. There are three reasons for that. One is the distance between the two villages. The distance between Settipalli and Mangalam is 11/2 kms. as stated by P. W. 6 in his cross-examination. Second is that A1 had acquaintance with P. W. 6 and, therefore, P. W. 6 was not a stranger to A1. Thirdly, as elicited in the cross-examination of P. Ws. 6 and 12, P. W. 6 had already acted as Panch witness 5 or 6 times concerning 20 to 25 cases of Alipiri Police Station, which shows that P. W. 6 had frequent contacts with Alipiri Police Station and that might have prompted A1 to make confession before P. W. 6 so that he could be of some help to him. Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of P. W. 6 to discredit his testimony on this aspect, except making a suggestion that A1 did not make confession before him. Therefore, just because P. W. 6 acted as Panch in 5 or 6 cases and A1 preferred to make the confession before P. W. 6 the Village Administrative Officer of another village, it cannot be said that the confession should be disbelieved, especially because P. W. 6 did not record earlier any extra-judicial confessions in any other cases. He reduced into writing whatever A1 confessed before him. It would not be possible for this witness to know the motive for A1 and each and every detail of the occurrence had A1 not made the confession. Considering these aspects, we are of the opinion that there is no reason for P. W. 6 to implicate falsely the accused in the case or to doubt the genuineness of the confession. ( 15 ) WE will now come to the discovery of the dead body, clothes and ornaments of the deceased. The evidence of P. Ws. 1, 2, 6, 10 and 12 is relevant on these aspects. P. Ws. 1 and 2 stated that A1 led the police party to the "thope" of Naidu and pointed out "vanka" saying that it was the place where he buried the dead body of the deceased. They are totally independent witnesses. Nothing has been brought on record to discredit their testimony. P. W. 10 was the Mandal Revenue Officer of Tirupati Urban. He had no reason to grind the axe against the accused, as he belonged to a different village. He stated that A1 pointed out the place of burial of the dead body. He got the dead body exhumed. P. W. 12 also stated that at the instance of the accused they got the dead body exhumed from "vanka". This evidence on record clearly establishes that the dead body was exhumed from "vanka" in pursuance of the confessional statement made by A1. He got the dead body exhumed. P. W. 12 also stated that at the instance of the accused they got the dead body exhumed from "vanka". This evidence on record clearly establishes that the dead body was exhumed from "vanka" in pursuance of the confessional statement made by A1. ( 16 ) LEARNED counsel for the accused contended that the police had sent requisitions to P. W. 10 and P. W. 9 even before the accused showed them the place of burial which clearly shows that the police already knew the place through some other source where the dead body was buried and, therefore, the discovery made by A1 in pursuance of the confessional statement does not fall within the ambit of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. ( 17 ) THE essential ingredients of Section 27 are that the information given by the accused must lead to the discovery of a fact which is the outcome of such information, that only such portion of the information given as is distinctly connected with the said recovery is admissible against the accused, and that the discovery of fact must relate to the commission of some offence. There is no embargo on the statement of the accused before the Police if the above conditions are fulfilled. ( 18 ) THE place of burial did not come to the notice of Police or any of the witnesses through anybody else. It came through A1 alone. A1 first stated before P. W. 6 about the place of burial. P. W. 6 produced A1 before the Police. The Police recorded the confessional statement of A1, the admissible portion of which is Ex. P8. In pursuance of Ex. P8, P. W. 12 issued requisition to P. W. 10-M. R. O. , and P. W. 9 the Doctor. P. W. 6 stated that he handed over A1 to Police along with Ex. P7. Police then recorded Ex. P8. It means that even before Ex. P8 was recorded, the police came to know about all the details of the incident through Ex. P7. It was elicited in the cross-examination of P. W. 11 - the Sub-Inspector of Police - who received Ex. P7 that it took about 10 to 15 minutes for him to read Ex. P7. He stated that he informed P. W. 12 - Inspector of Police over phone about the incident. P7. It was elicited in the cross-examination of P. W. 11 - the Sub-Inspector of Police - who received Ex. P7 that it took about 10 to 15 minutes for him to read Ex. P7. He stated that he informed P. W. 12 - Inspector of Police over phone about the incident. P. W. 11 stated that on reading Ex. P 7 itself they came to know the place of burial of the dead body and the clothes. This sentence is sought to be relied upon by the learned counsel for the accused to show that the Police knew about the place of burial and the clothes even before the accused showed them exact spot. But, a close and combined reading of the entire evidence of P. W. 11 shows that on reading Ex. P 7 he could understand and visualize the place because of his geographical acquaintance with the surrounding areas situated within the jurisdiction of Alipiri Police Station, as he worked in Alipiri Police Station for about two years. It would be a sheer misconception to read the words "from the contents of Ex. P7" in the evidence of P. W. 11 to mean "before reading the contents of Ex. P7" and to infer, in the absence of any evidence, that the Police had already known the spot even before Ex. P7 was handed over to them. Since the confessional statement of A1 in Ex. P7 was exhaustive, P. W. 12 might have thought that the dead body and the clothes would certainly be discovered at the place to be shown by A1, before actually seeing the spot he must have issued requisitions to P. Ws. 9 and 10 so that exhumation, inquest and post-mortem could be done without delay. In view of these circumstances, there is nothing unusual or extraordinary in simultaneously requisitioning P. Ws. 9 and 10 which makes the prosecution case doubtful. ( 19 ) P. W. 12 left the police station along with his staff and A1. A1 led the police party and the mediators to "vanka". The dead body was then exhumed and inquest was held. P. W. 3 identified the dead body. P. Ws. 1 and 2 also stated that A1 showed the place of burial. After the dead body was exhumed, A1 also showed the pit in which he kept the clothes of the deceased. The dead body was then exhumed and inquest was held. P. W. 3 identified the dead body. P. Ws. 1 and 2 also stated that A1 showed the place of burial. After the dead body was exhumed, A1 also showed the pit in which he kept the clothes of the deceased. The unimpeachable evidence of all these witnesses shows that A1 had exclusive knowledge over the concealment of dead body and the clothes. Therefore, the Prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt the discovery of the dead body. Though nobody identified the clothes of the deceased, it is yet an incriminating circumstance against the deceased, inasmuch as except A1 nobody else had knowledge about it and unless the clothes belonged to the deceased, there was no need for A1 to conceal the clothes. ( 20 ) THE Prosecution also relied upon the recovery of M. Os. 3 to 5, which are the gold ornaments allegedly belonging to the deceased. These ornaments were recovered from the mother of A1. This cannot be an incriminating circumstance, because there is no evidence on record to show that the deceased used to wear these ornaments or those ornaments belonged to her. ( 21 ) WE will now examine the conduct of A1. Even though the deceased was missing from 12-6-1999, he did not make any effort to trace her. To show that efforts were made, a frail attempt was made on behalf of A1 stating that a report was lodged with the Police on 14-6-1999. P. Ws. 11 and 12 did not say that such report was lodged. There was not even a suggestion to them on this aspect. Till A1 was arrested by the Police, he did not make any endeavour to trace the deceased. This conduct is indeed questionable and unnatural. Being the husband, his first natural step was to lodge a report with the Police as soon as he came to know about the missing of his wife. It is still surprising that when P. Ws. 1 and 2 took pains to ascertain the whereabouts of the deceased from A1, he told them that the deceased had gone to her parents house which statement was later found to be false. Therefore, this conduct on the part of A1 provides an additional link to the chain of circumstances in the case. 1 and 2 took pains to ascertain the whereabouts of the deceased from A1, he told them that the deceased had gone to her parents house which statement was later found to be false. Therefore, this conduct on the part of A1 provides an additional link to the chain of circumstances in the case. ( 22 ) FROM the evidence on record, it cannot be said that it is A1 who committed the murder of the deceased and all the circumstances if taken cumulatively point only the guilt of A1. ( 23 ) INSOFAR as A2 is concerned, there cannot be any dispute that the confession of a co-accused cannot be treated as substantive evidence. When the Prosecution relied upon the evidence of one accused person against another accused person, the proper approach to adopt it is to consider the other evidence against such accused and if such evidence appears to be satisfactory and the Court is inclined to hold that the said confession may sustain the charge framed against the said accused, the Court should turn to the confession with a view to ensure itself that the conclusion which it is inclined to draw from the other evidence is right. In other words, the confession of a co-accused can only be used to lend assurance to the other independent evidence sufficient for sustaining a conviction. This view has been stated by a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Haricharan Kurmi v. State of Bihar, AIR 1964 SC 1184 . As seen from the evidence on record, except the confession of A1 as recorded in Ex. P7, there is absolutely no evidence against A2 with regard to the commission of murder or screening of the offence. So also there is absolutely no evidence against A2 with regard to the conspiracy he allegedly entered with A1 for the commission of the offence. The trial Court took the confession of A1 into consideration and came to the conclusion that A2 is also guilty of the charges levelled against him. We are unable to accept that finding in view of the aforesaid well settled legal position. Therefore, the conviction and sentence against A2 cannot sustain and are liable to be set aside. The trial Court took the confession of A1 into consideration and came to the conclusion that A2 is also guilty of the charges levelled against him. We are unable to accept that finding in view of the aforesaid well settled legal position. Therefore, the conviction and sentence against A2 cannot sustain and are liable to be set aside. But, as far as A1 is concerned, all the circumstances point the guilt against him only and those circumstances are complete and unbroken leading to the irresistible and unmistakable conclusion that it is A1 and he alone who committed the crime. ( 24 ) UNDER Section 120-B, IPC, there must be an agreement between two or more persons to constitute criminal conspiracy. Even as seen from Ex. P7 it cannot be said that A1 entered into a criminal conspiracy with A2 and so A1 is not liable for the charge under Section 120-B, IPC. ( 25 ) IN the result, we confirm the conviction and sentence against A1 for the offences under Sections 302 and 201, IPC and set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 120-B, IPC. We set aside the conviction and sentence against A2. A2 be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part. Order accordingly.