JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24.4.1987 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar convicting and sentencing the accused-appellants for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. 2. In pursuance of an FIR lodged by one Shri Mahender Singh at about 1.00 PM on 14.1.1986, investigation was made. According to the first information report deceased Sardar Singh was residing in his farm which is at a distance of about one 'murabba' and three 'killas' from the farm of informant. The informant was informed by Hansa Singh that while he called Sardar Singh, in the morning at 9 AM, he did not respond. Then he went near his Kotha, and there he found that Sardar Singh was lying dead in a pool of blood. When he received information from Hansa Singh he lodged FIR. He also expressed his suspicion that Sardar Singh has been murdered by his brother Nazar Singh and his son, the appellant. In this connection it was also reported in the FIR that a day before the murder, Nazar Singh and his sons were working in their field. They had a land dispute with deceased Sardar Singh and litigation is pending between the deceased Sardar Singh, Nazar Singh and his sons in respect of the land. On the basis of this information, a case was registered under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and after investigation chailan was submitted and the accused were tried by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. who convicted them as aforesaid. 3. There is no ocular evidence in the present case and the prosecution case solely depends on the circumstantial evidence. 4. The dual circumstances, on the basis of which the accused appellant are sought to be connected with the commission of offence are, firstly the recovery of blood stained Kassi from the appellant Nihal Singh vide Ex.P. 24 dated 25.1.1986 and recovery of Jafa vide Ex.P dated 25.1.1986 and recovery of blood stained clothes from Nazar Singh vide Ex.P. 28 dated 26.8.1986. The another circumstance on which prosecution heavily relies is the alleged extra judicial confession of Nazar Singh, Nihal Singh and Gurjant Singh of the guilt alleged to have been made before Muktyar Singh PW 6 who is real brother of Sardar Singh and Nazar Singh and Sadu Singh, PW7 who is son of deceased. 5. The another circumstance on which prosecution heavily relies is the alleged extra judicial confession of Nazar Singh, Nihal Singh and Gurjant Singh of the guilt alleged to have been made before Muktyar Singh PW 6 who is real brother of Sardar Singh and Nazar Singh and Sadu Singh, PW7 who is son of deceased. 5. The learned Trial Judge acquitted Nazar Singh as he did not find any common intention for commission of murder by Nihal Singh and Gurjant Singh. 6. However, on the basis of aforesaid circumstantial evidence, Nihal Singh and Gurjant Singh the appellants were found guilty of committing s murder of Sardar Singh and were convicted for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and were sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each. In case of failure to pay the fine, the appellants were to further undergo two months' rigorous imprisonment. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants has urged that there being no ocular testimony and the chain of circumstances must lead to one and one conclusion about the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt and not inconsistent with the guilt of accused. Any loop in the said chain is enough to result in benefit to the accused. Where any circumstance is not proved in the hairs linking the accused with the offence, then the conviction cannot be sustained. 8. With this premise it was contended that extra judicial confession which has been made before the highly interested witnesses, read as a whole, does not support the case of the prosecution in any sense. Our attention was invited towards the statements of Mukhtyar Singh, PW 6 and Sadu Singh, PW 7 for contending that from the testimony of these two witnesses, it cannot be concluded with any sense of reasonable certainty that the appellants made any such confession. 9. We have perused the statements and find substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. PW 6 Mukhtyar Singh in his examination in chief says that while they returning with the articles for funeral Nazar Singh, Nihal Singh and Janta Singh met them and all the three of them stated that :" ljnkj flag dk gels [kwu gks x;k gSA "In the cross-examination he has stated that one Nazar Singh and others met him near Bahadduro Ki Dhani. He was accompanied with Gurmel Singh and met Nazar Singh for about 2-4 minutes. He clearly stated that apart from what has been stated in examination-in-chief, the accused persons said nothing else. Mukhtyar Singh further states that after funeral, the fact about the confession made by Nazar Singh, Nihal Singh and Gurjar Singh was told to police arid they were requested to arrest them. There is no dispute about the fact that funeral took place on 16.1.1986, the date after Lohidi. 10. Against the statement of Sadu Singh, PW 7 who is son of the deceased have stated about the same incident as under:- " tc ge lkeku ysdj okfil vk jgs Fks rks gesa iDds [kkys ds mij ukt flag] xqjtaV flag] fugky flag rhuksa eqyfteku feysA rhuksa eqyfteku esjs pkpk ds iSjksa esa fxj x;s vkSj dgus yxs fd ge dRy rks dj cSBs ysfdu vc gesa cpkvksaA " 11. He admitted the existing dispute about the land between the accused and himself. However, in the cross-examination, he did not speak at out the presence of Gurmel Singh. While Mukhtyar Singh categorically stated in his statement that apart from stating that " ljnkj flag dk gels [kwu gks x;kA " nothing was stated by the accused persons, Sadu Singh in his cross-examination has further stated that " eSa rks vkaxu esa [kM+k Fkk vkSj fugky flag o taVk flag us dRy dj fn;kA " 12. In cross-examination he has further stated that. mu rhuksa us esjs ls ckr ugha dh dsoy eq[kR;kj flag ls ckr dh FkhA gks ldrk gS dsoy uktj flag us gh Lohdkj fd;k gksA iqfyl c;ku] izn'kZ Mh&2 dk fgLlk , ls ch ftlesa eSaus ;s dgk fd uktj flag us gh dRy djuk dgk Fkk ;s eSaus fy[kk;k ;k ugha eq>s /;ku ughaA eq>s D;k ekywe dh vdsys uktj flag us cksyk ;k rhuksa us cksyk FkkA rhuksa }kjk dRy djus dh ckr esjs c;ku izn'kZ Mh 2 esa D;ksa ugha fy[kh eq>s irk ughaA 13. Apparently, the statement of Sadu Singh dilutes the said extra s judicial confession to nothingness when he says that he does not know whether all the three confessed to have committed murder or only Nazar Singh confessed. There is no denial of the fact that Mukhtyar Singh and Sadu Singh were coming back from funeral at the time of making alleged extra judicial confession. 14. There is no denial of the fact that Mukhtyar Singh and Sadu Singh were coming back from funeral at the time of making alleged extra judicial confession. 14. According to Sadu Singh, he is not sure whether Nazar Singh alone spoke or all the three confessed about the commission of the crime. It is also apparent that the statement of Sadu Singh is in contradiction of what he has stated before the police in respect of the confession on which conviction is sought to be made. 15. Apart from the apparent contradiction In respect of confession which was made before Mukhtyar Singh and Sadu Singh, according to PW 6 Mukhtiyar Singh, one Gurmel Singh was also present. It cannot be doubted that Mukhtyar Singh and Sadu Singh are highly interested witnesses having a land dispute with the accused persons. In these circumstances, non-production of the independent witnesses who was present accordingly to Sadhu Singh at the time of making of confession raises serious doubt about the credibility of these confessional statements. On the basis of the aforesaid extra judicial confession, it cannot be said that the existence of the circumstances has been proved beyond reasonable doubt to link the appellant the commission of crime beyond the reasonable doubt. In our opinion, the aforesaid circumstance of the extra judicial confession has been made before Mukhtyar Singh and Sadu Singh has serious infirmity and is not sufficient to sustain the conviction of the accused appellants. 16. The only other circumstance which has been relied on by the prosecution to prove the guilt of appellants is the recovery of the weapons of commission of crime as noticed above. According to the police Kassi Ex.P. 24 was recovered at the Instance of Nihal Singh on 25th Jan., 1986 and Jafa vide Ex.P on 25th Jan., 1986. However, the evidence in that regard is highly contradictory in terms and makes the recovery of alleged articles of the blood stained weapon highly suspicious. 17. Hansa Singh PW 2 was the first person who is alleged to have seen the deceased in a pool of blood in the morning of 14th Jan., 1986. He in his statement clearly states that when he has gone to Sardar Singh and seen his dead body, a blood stained Kassi was lying 2-4 fits away from the body and Jafa whose bamboo was broken was also lying there. He in his statement clearly states that when he has gone to Sardar Singh and seen his dead body, a blood stained Kassi was lying 2-4 fits away from the body and Jafa whose bamboo was broken was also lying there. The police has taken the Jafa and Kassi in the possession from the place of occurrence. Hansa Singh is a prosecution witness and is not a hostile witness. If his statement is to be believed the said weapon of crime were already taken in possession by the police when it visited the place of occurrence after the receipt of first information report. These two articles Kassi and Jafa were lying near the dead body and were even observed by the witnesses. Hansa Singh's statement completely belies the theory of recovery of weapons of offence in pursuance of information's given by the accused persons. 18. Apart from that, the statements of witnesses in whose presence the recovery of the aforesaid articles has been effected. also does not establish the aforesaid circumstance for the benefit of prosecution. Mahender PW 3 who has lodged the FIR and is also a Motbir witness of the recovery of Kassi from Nihal Singh and recovery of Jafa from Gurjar Singh has stated in his cross-examination that when he was brought by the police at the place of occurrence. the police directed him to bring Jafa from the roof s and S.H.O. directed Nihal Singh to bring Kassi from the heap of crop. On such directions, Gurjar Singh. and Nihal Singh brought Jafa and Kassi respectively. If police had already known about the place where the weapon of offence were lying, the question of recovery at the instance of accused so as to connect them with the offence cannot be sustained. 19. Moreover, Muktyar Singh in his cross-examination does not support the story of Mahender Singh. According to Muktyar Singh, a Kassi was recovered from the stores of crop and Jafa was recovered from the Kotha. However, he does not say a word that these recoveries were made at the instance of accused persons. 20. 19. Moreover, Muktyar Singh in his cross-examination does not support the story of Mahender Singh. According to Muktyar Singh, a Kassi was recovered from the stores of crop and Jafa was recovered from the Kotha. However, he does not say a word that these recoveries were made at the instance of accused persons. 20. Apart from the aforesaid discrepancies in the evidence regarding the recovery of weapons of offence at the instance of the accused persons while the chemical report on examination of the aforesaid weapons of offence discloses that they were blood stained and the blood was of B group, there is no evidence to show that the blood group of the deceased was also of B group. Therefore, this evidence does not connect the accused with the commission of offence. 21. The finding of learned Trial Judge that the articles recovered were having blood stains of Sardar Singh can only be accepted on the statement of Hansa Singh. As discussed above Hansa Singh's statement destroy the case of recoveries at the instance of accused persons so as to connect them with the offence. 22. Therefore, viewed from any angle the two circumstances on which prosecution relies are not proved beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of material available on record and the conviction cannot be maintained thereon. 23. Moreover, there is another significant discrepancy about the arrest of the accused. According to the statement of Muktyar Singh and Sadu Sir-1h. before whom the alleged confession was made, the police was informed at the time of funeral where it was present, on 16th of Jan., 1986. According to the statement of Hansa Singh, the accused persons were arrested on 16th Jan., 1986. However, the arrest memos show that three accused persons have been arrested on 24th January only. If the information about extra judicial confession was conveyed to the police at the time of funeral, there is no mention of such confession in the police Statements of Mukhtiyar Singh PW 6 and Sadhu Singh PW 7 and there is no explanation why accused were arrested as ate as on 24th January, if police was made aware of extra judicial confession on 16th January. 24. As a result of the aforesaid discussion this appeal must succeed. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The judgment under appeal is set as aside. The conviction of the appellants are set aside. 24. As a result of the aforesaid discussion this appeal must succeed. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The judgment under appeal is set as aside. The conviction of the appellants are set aside. The appellants are already on bail. Their bailbonds are discharged.Appeal Allowed - Conviction Set Aside. *******