Judgment Mehtab S.Gill, J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment dated 23.4.1997 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana whereby he convicted appellants Satinder Pal Singh and Jaswinder Singh under Section 302 IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for one year. He also convicted appellant Bahadur Singh under Sections 302/34 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for one year. Appellant Bahadur Singh was also convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for one year. Appellants Satinderpal Singh and Jaswinder Singh were also convicted under Sections 302/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for one year. 2. A Division Bench of this Court vide its order dated 9.8.2001, acquitted the appellants giving them the benefit of doubt. Against the acquittal order of this Court, the State preferred an appeal and filed Special Leave to Appeal No. 1195 of 2002. Special leave was granted by the Honble Supreme Court vide order dated 15.11.2002 and while deciding Criminal Appeal No. 1191 of 2002, the Honble Supreme Court set aside the order of this Court and remanded the case back for fresh adjudication after recording the statements afresh under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The trial Court (Sessions Judge, Ludhiana) recorded the statements of the appellants on 1.12.2003 as per the directions given by the Honble Supreme Court. 3. This appeal i.e. Cr. A. No. 412-DB of 1997 has come up before us for final adjudication, as per the directions of the Honble Supreme Court. 4. The case of the prosecution is unfolded by the statement of Pritam Singh given to Inspector Ram Murti (PW-12), SHO, Police Station, Payal on 10.3.1993 at 6.30 p.m. in the area of Village Kaddon. Pritam Singh stated he has three sons and one daughter. 4. The case of the prosecution is unfolded by the statement of Pritam Singh given to Inspector Ram Murti (PW-12), SHO, Police Station, Payal on 10.3.1993 at 6.30 p.m. in the area of Village Kaddon. Pritam Singh stated he has three sons and one daughter. About 6 years ago, he married his daughter Manjinder Kaur, aged about 24 to 25 years with Satinder Pal Singh alias Sikander Singh, barber by caste, resident of Raipur Raian P.S. Khamano. Manjinder Kaur gave birth to two daughters. Her elder daughter Rosy aged about 4 years was residing with Pritam Singh and younger daughter Babbu was residing with her parents. Satinder Pal Singh used to beat his daughter (Manjinder Kaur) and made false allegations, that she is a woman of loose character. Pritam Singh along with his brother Harinder Singh complained to Puran Chand father of Satinder Pal Singh. Pritam Singh sent his son Ranjit Singh to Raipur Raian to bring Manjinder Kaur, as Rosy was sick. Ranjit Singh came back and told his father that Satinder Pal did not send Manjinder Kaur back, but he promised to come to the village on 7.3.1993. On 7.3.1993, Pritam Singhs daughter or son-in-law did not come. Rosy was weeping, as she missed her mother. Ranjit Singh was again sent to Khamano, where Satinder Pal Singh was running a barber shop. Ranjit Singh came back at 5 p.m. and told his father that he met Satinder Pal Singh at about 3 p.m. in his shop, titled "Bombay Hair Dressing" at Khamano. Satinder Pal Singh was taking liquor with about four friends of his. Satinder Pal Singh promised that he would reach the house of the complainant by the evening. On the next day i.e. on 9.3.1993, Pritam Singhs elder son Mohinder Singh was sent to Khamano, but he also came back in the evening and stated that he did not meet Satinder Pal Singh at the shop. Parents of Satinder Pal Singh told Mohinder Singh that Satinder Pal Singh along with his wife and daughter had gone on a scooter, to leave Manjinder Kaur in her parents house at Doraha. This was on 8.3.1993. Next day, Satinder Pal Singh came back to his house and told his parents that he had left Manjinder Kaur along with his daughter at Doraha. This was on 8.3.1993. Next day, Satinder Pal Singh came back to his house and told his parents that he had left Manjinder Kaur along with his daughter at Doraha. Pritam Singh along with his son Ranjit Singh, Jaswinder Singh, Member Panchayat then went to Village Raipur Raian and Khamano and started searching for Satinder Pal Singh, but he could not be found. Parents of Satinder Pal Singh told Pritam Singh and others that their son had left Manjinder Kaur and his daughter at Doraha on 8.3.1993. More search was made to find Satinder Pal Singh. On 8.3.1993 at about 5.30 p.m., Pritam Singh got the news that Satinder Pal Singh along with his wife, daughter and four boys were seen at Samarala. From there they had gone to Doraha after crossing the Katana Sahib Bridge at about 8 p.m. Ranjit Singh told his father that the companions of Satinder Pal Singh who were drinking along with him, were Bahadur Singh resident of Ranwan, Jaswinder Singh alias Bittu resident of Mundi Khurd, Pargat Singh resident of Mundi Khurd and Chhinda resident of Nangal. Pritam Singh complainant further stated that his daughter Manjinder Kaur and grand-daughter Babbu have been killed by his son-in-law, himself, or with the help of his friends. Pritam Singh had been getting information that his son-in-law had ill relations with some other girl. Besides other articles, one pair of gold ear-rings, one gold ring with mark "MK", and one lady watch of "CITIZEN" were given to his daughter by way of dowry. These articles his daughter always wore. 5. On the basis of this statement Ex. PA, formal FIR Ex. PA/2 was recorded on 10.3.1993 at 6.50 p.m. Special report was sent to the J.M.I.C., Ludhiana on 10.3.1993 at 10.30 p.m. 6. Inspector Ram Murti (PW-12) along with family members of Pritam Singh searched for the dead-body of Manjinder Kaur. A purse Ex. P1, lipstick Ex. P2, Chunni Ex. P3, Sandal Ex. P4, Handkerchief Ex. P5 and clip belonging to Manjinder Kaur were recovered from the bank of the Sirhind canal in between Doraha and Nillon. These articles were taken into possession. Dead-body of Majiinder Kaur was found on 17.3.1993 floating in the Patiala feeder, near Village Gurthali. The dead-body was identified by complainant Pritam Singh and Rajinder Singh. Scooter bearing registration No. PB-10D-4327 was recovered from the possession of appellant Satinder Pal Singh. These articles were taken into possession. Dead-body of Majiinder Kaur was found on 17.3.1993 floating in the Patiala feeder, near Village Gurthali. The dead-body was identified by complainant Pritam Singh and Rajinder Singh. Scooter bearing registration No. PB-10D-4327 was recovered from the possession of appellant Satinder Pal Singh. Another scooter Bajaj Chetak bearing registration No. PCH-5124 was recovered from appellant Bahadur Singh vide recovery memo Ex. PK. On the basis of disclosure statement Ex. PO, gold ear ring Ex. P11 was recovered from Satinder Pal Singh. Gold ring bearing impression "MK" was recovered from Jaswinder Singh on the basis of disclosure statement Ex. PP. A wrist watch Ex. P13 was recovered from Bahadur Singh on the basis of disclosure statement Ex. PQ vide recovery memo Ex. PQ/1. 7. The prosecution to prove its case, brought into the witness-box PW-1 Pritam Singh, PW-2 Ranjit Singh, PW-3 Mohinder Singh, PW-4 Harjinder Singh, PW-5 Mohan Singh, Patwari, PW-6 Dr. S.K. Sharma, PW-7 Brij Lal alias Chhinder Pal, PW-8 Balbir Singh, PW-9 Rajinder Singh Lambardar, PW-10 Rajinder Kumar, PW-11 Major Singh, PW-12 Inspector Ram Murti and PW-13 Constable Makhan Singh. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that case of the prosecution hinges on the statements of Brij Lal (PW-7), the alleged eye-witness to the occurrence, and Rajinder Kumar (PW-9) before whom the alleged extra-judicial confession is supposed to have been made. 9. Rajinder Kumar (PW-9) in his testimony has stated that he knew complainant Pritam Singh and he has cordial relations with him. He has further stated that the house of Satinder Pal Singh is 45 kms. away from his village. This witness is an interested witness. He has conceded the fact that he is a friend of the father of deceased Manjinder Kaur. There was no need for the appellants to make an extra-judicial confession before Rajinder Singh Lambardar (PW-9), as both the appellants and Rajinder Singh (PW-9), as both the appellants and Rajinder Singh (PW-9) belonged to different villages. It has come in evidence that the distance between the village of appellant Satinder Pal Singh and Rajinder Singh (PW-9) is 45 kms. Appellants, if they did want to make a confession of their guilt, would have done so, to a respectable of their own village. Rajinder Singh (PW-9) did not know the police, police would not have given any concession to the appellants on his asking. Appellants, if they did want to make a confession of their guilt, would have done so, to a respectable of their own village. Rajinder Singh (PW-9) did not know the police, police would not have given any concession to the appellants on his asking. By confessing their guilt before Rajinder Singh (PW-9), appellants would not have benefited or gained anything from the police. Confession is always made to a person who is known to the police, and can derive some benefit for the accused. There was no need for appellants Bahadur Singh and Jaswinder Singh to make a confession before Rajinder Singh (PW-9) as only Satinder Pal was known to him and the other two appellants were not even known to him. The extra-judicial confession has been made on 25.3.1993 after 17 days of the alleged occurrence. 10. Brij Lal (PW-7) who had seen the occurrence, cannot be regarded as an eye-witness with any stretch of imagination. He, in fact, was an accomplice in the commission of the offence. Appellant Satinder Pal Singh took Brij Lal (PW-7) along to beat up some boy, but it is strange that this witness while going along with appellant Satinder Pal Singh, did not question him as to why he is taking his wife and daughter who was 2-1/2 years old along. Testimony of this witness cannot be taken into consideration, as provisions of Section 306 Cr.P.C. have not been complied with. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants Mr. R.S. Ghai, Senior Advocate has further argued that it is strange that ornaments of deceased Manjinder Kaur were distributed amongst the appellants though they belonged to the wife of appellant Satinder Pal Singh. Appellant Satinder Pal Singh taking the gold ear ring Ex. P11, appellant Jaswinder Singh taking the gold ring mark "MK" and appellant Bahadur Singh taking the wrist watch Ex. P13. These articles strangely were then buried at the place of occurrence by the appellants, as alleged by the prosecution. Manipulation of the confession has been done to the extent of it being absurd and not believable. 12. Learned counsel for the State has argued that Brij Lal (PW-7) is not an accomplice, but an eye-witness to the occurrence. He was asked by Satinder Pal Singh that some boy was to beaten up and he should accompany him. Manipulation of the confession has been done to the extent of it being absurd and not believable. 12. Learned counsel for the State has argued that Brij Lal (PW-7) is not an accomplice, but an eye-witness to the occurrence. He was asked by Satinder Pal Singh that some boy was to beaten up and he should accompany him. Brij Lal (PW-7) accompanied appellant Satinder Pal Singh along with the other appellants, but instead of the boy being beaten up, appellants extinguished the life of Manjinder Kaur and her daughter. Brij Lal (PW-7) did not disclose it to anyone that he had witnessed the murder of Manjinder Kaur out of fear. On 11.3.1993, he recorded his statement with the police. His statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 19.3.1993. 13. Testimony of Rajinder Singh (PW-9) inspires confidence. He has stated that he saw appellant Satinder Pal Singh along with the other appellants. He gave a signal to stop them, but they did not do so. Appellant Satinder Pal Singh was known to him. Extra-judicial confession was made to him along with the other co-accused on 25.11.1993, as they wanted that they be produced before the police. There was no need for Pritam Singh complainant to falsely implicate his own son-in-law and let the actual culprits go scot free. It has come in the statement of Pritam Singh (PW-1) that Manjinder Kaur and appellant Satinder Pal Singh were having a strained matrimonial relationship. Satinder Pal Singh used to beat her and maltreat her. 14. Recoveries of ear-ring Ex. P11, gold ring, Ex. PP and wrist watch Ex. P13 have been effected on the basis of disclosure statements made by the appellants. 15. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance. 16. Pritam Singh (PW-1) in his testimony before the Court has stated that the mother of Satinder Pal Singh told him that her son Satinder Pal Singh had informed her that on 8.3.1993, that he was going to Doraha to leave Manjinder Kaur and his daughter with Pritam Singh. Jassi who was married to the niece of Pritam Singh complainant, told Pritam Singh that on 8.3.1993 at about 5.30 p.m., he had seen appellant Satinder Pal Singh along with Manjinder Kaur and four other persons on two scooters going towards Nillon. 17. Jassi was a crucial witness to fill the chain of events. Jassi who was married to the niece of Pritam Singh complainant, told Pritam Singh that on 8.3.1993 at about 5.30 p.m., he had seen appellant Satinder Pal Singh along with Manjinder Kaur and four other persons on two scooters going towards Nillon. 17. Jassi was a crucial witness to fill the chain of events. Jassi had seen the deceased along with the appellants immediately before the disappearance of Manjinder Kaur and her daughter. This witness though being a relative of complainant Pritam Singh and deceased Manjinder Kaur, was not brought into the witness-box by the prosecution. Jassi is the one who saw the deceased and appellants before the alleged murder took place. The crucial evidence of last seen evidence is missing in this case. 18. As alleged, Pritam Singh along with the police started searching for his daughter and grand-daughter and when they reached between Raipur Raian near Katana Bridge, and in the torch light, they saw a purse near the bank of Sirhind canal. In this purse, there was one lipstick, one handkerchief, hair-clip and currency notes worth Rs. 15/-. Dupatta was lying near the bushes of the canal. Pritam Singh (PW-1) identified these articles and these were taken into possession by the police. Body of the deceased was found in the Sarhind Canal on 17.3.1993 in the revenue area of Village Gurthali. No explanation is coming from the side of the prosecution as to how did Pritam Singh (PW-1) along with the police reach the place of occurrence, and that also in the night. 19. Brij Lal (PW-7) has stated in his testimony before the Court that on 8.3.1993 appellant Bahadur Singh had gone on scooter No. PB-10-1511 to listen to some singer. Pritam Singh (PW-1) and appellant Jaswinder Singh alias Bitu met them after some time. Satinder Singh alias Sikander Singh also joined them. At about 2 p.m. Satinder Pal Singh took them to a shop in Khamano. He served them liquor. Appellant Satinder Pal Singh told them that he wanted to beat up a boy and they should help him. Satinder Pal Singh went to his house in Raipur Raian on scooter bearing registration No. PB-10-D-4327 and returned at 5.30 p.m. with his wife Manjinder Kaur and daughter. They all (appellants) then went towards Samrala on scooters. He served them liquor. Appellant Satinder Pal Singh told them that he wanted to beat up a boy and they should help him. Satinder Pal Singh went to his house in Raipur Raian on scooter bearing registration No. PB-10-D-4327 and returned at 5.30 p.m. with his wife Manjinder Kaur and daughter. They all (appellants) then went towards Samrala on scooters. Brij Lal (PW-7) was driving his own scooter No. PB-10-1511 and Pargat Singh was sitting on the pillion of his scooter. Pargat Singh belongs to Mundi Khurd. Appellant Bahadur Singh was driving his own scooter No. PCH-5124, appellant Jaswinder Singh was sitting on the pillion of his scooter. On reaching Samrala, appellant Satinder Pal Singh met some relatives of his. They all thereafter drove towards Nillon. From Nillon, they turned towards Doraha driving on the bank of Sarhind canal. At about 8 p.m. Satinder Pal Singh stopped his scooter near Gurdwara Katana Sahab on the bank of the canal. He then accused his wife to be characterless, and that he would finish her. The baby was handed over to appellant Bahadur Singh. Thereafter appellants Satinder Pal Singh and Jaswinder Singh gave one knife blow each on the chest of deceased Manjinder Kaur. Appellant Satinder Pal Singh and Jaswinder Singh then threw the body of Manjinder Kaur in the canal after removing her ornaments. Appellant Bahadur Singh throttled the neck of the child aged 2-1/2 years and threw her into the canal. Appellant Satinder Pal Singh then threatened the other co-accused, that they would be finished, if they told this to anyone. 20. We are in consonance with the argument put forward by Mr. R.S. Ghai, Senior Advocate, that Brij Lal (PW-7) should not be termed as an eye-witness, but as an accomplice. The provisions of Section 306 Cr.P.C should have been followed. Learned counsel has further argued that though under Section 133 of the Evidence Act, an accomplice is a competent witness, but the statement of an accomplice should be scrutinised with caution and care as he is an unreliable witness. The provisions of Section 306 Cr.P.C should have been followed. Learned counsel has further argued that though under Section 133 of the Evidence Act, an accomplice is a competent witness, but the statement of an accomplice should be scrutinised with caution and care as he is an unreliable witness. As per the procedure to be followed under Section 306 Cr.P.C., an accomplice who is directly privy to an offence, is to be produced before a C.J.M. or a Metropolitan Magistrate, who may, during the course of investigation, or inquiry, or trial, may tender pardon to such person, only on the condition after the accomplice has made a confession of his guilt. Brij Lal (PW-7) was a privy to the commission of the offence. He was, in the eyes of law, an accomplice, and not an eye-witness. The statement given by this witness in the Court under Section 164 Cr.P.C., is that appellant Satinder Pal Singh took him along to beat a boy. It is strange that although he saw that Satinder Pal Singh was taking his wife and child along, he kept quiet and did not ask Satinder Pal Singh, as to why he was taking his wife and child along, as their purpose to go was to beat a boy. Mr. R.S. Ghai has rightly argued that if appellant Satinder Pal wanted to commit the murder of his wife and child, there was no need for him to take along with him Brij Lal (PW-7), appellant Bahadur Singh and appellant Jaswinder Singh. In fact, he would have kept everybody away, so that there are no witness to the commission of the offence. There was no need for him to commit the crime on a busy road between Nillon and Doraha, but he could have extinguished the life of his wife and child near his own village. 21. The alleged occurrence had taken place on a busy road (between Nillon and Doraha) and that also near Gurdwara Katana Sahab, where a lot of people come to pay their respects from neighbouring villages. At 8 p.m. in the month of March. 22. Rajinder Singh (PW-9) before whom the alleged extra-judicial confession has been made, does not inspire confidence. He is a friend of complainant Pritam Singh (PW-1). This witness in his testimony before the Court has confessed that he has cordial relations with Pritam Singh (PW-1). At 8 p.m. in the month of March. 22. Rajinder Singh (PW-9) before whom the alleged extra-judicial confession has been made, does not inspire confidence. He is a friend of complainant Pritam Singh (PW-1). This witness in his testimony before the Court has confessed that he has cordial relations with Pritam Singh (PW-1). The distance between the villages of appellants Bahadur Singh, Satinder Pal Singh and Jaswinder Singh are 20/22 kms. away from each other. He has further stated that apart from appellant Satinder Pal Singh, the other appellants Bahadur Singh and Jaswinder Pal Singh were not known to him. This witness did not know the police, nor did he have any influence with the police. Extra- judicial confession is always made before a person who has some influence with the Investigating Agency. Confession before a person who has no influence with the police, will not be beneficial to the accused in any way. The reason for making a confession before somebody who knows the police, is for the purpose that the appellants be not maltreated or mistreated in police custody. At times request is made by the persons making confession to ask the police, so that the matter be compromised. Occurrence took place in this case on 8.3.1993 and the extra-judicial confession was made on 25.3.1993 before Rajinder Singh (PW-9). No reason has been given as to why the appellants waited for 17 days to confess their guilt. Extra-judicial confession in this case does not inspire confidence, nor is it truthful or trustworthy. 23. Appeal is allowed. Appellants are given the benefit of doubt and are acquitted of all the charges.