SANKAR PRASAD MITRA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment dated 31st March, 2001 passed by the learned Sessions judge, Bankura in Sessions Trial No. 2nd March, 2000 and Sessions Case No. 1st December, 1999, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced under section 302 of IPC to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of rs. 5,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case in brief is that on 1st October, 1997, the de facto complainant, Chittoranjan Sardar (P. W. 1) a neighbour of the appellant at about 8 a. m. did not find his aunt, Thandibala Sardar and the appellant's wife Mittika sardar both resident of village Mitham, P. S. Ranibandh and, therefore, he reported the matter to the co-villagers and with them he went to the house of sailen Sardar, appellant (accused) and called him to come out and he came out. On being questioned by them the accused told them that he killed his mother and his wife in the night of 30th September, 1997. The deadbodies of the victims were found on the floor of the room with bleeding injuries and this was seen by them. Thereafter the de facto complainant lodged written complaint at ranibandh Police Station scribed by Iswan Chandra Sardar and signed by himself vide Exhibit 1 series. On the basis of this complaint P. W. 11, Shiv prasad Singh, I. O. filled in the formal FIR and registered Ranibandh P. S. case No. 15 dated 1st October, 1997 at 10. 35 hrs. under section 302 of IPC vide exhibit 12 and took up the investigation of the case. The I. O. sent requisition to S. P. Bankura for a car, for carrying the deadbodies of the victim vide Exhibit 13 and thereafter he proceeded to place of occurrence i. e. village Mitham which was 10 kilometers away from the P. S. On reaching the P. O. the I. O. arrested the accused, held inquest in respect of the deadbodies of the victims vide Exhibits 2 and 3, prepared sketch map of the P. O. with index vide Exhibit 14, seized axe, katari, gray coloured blood-stained full-pant and other articles in presence of witnesses vide Exhibits 4 to 8 series. He also examined the witnesses and sent the deadbodies of the victims, namely, Thandibala Sardar and Mittika sardar to Bankura Morg under deadbody challans vide Exhibits 9 and 10 through Kali Pada Soren, constable No. 386 and prior to that he took photograph of the victims with the help of P. W. 7, Samir Chand. The deadbodies were examined by P. W. 8 Dr. J. N. Dey of Bankura Medical College and Hospital and after collecting P. M. report vide Exhibits 11 and 11/1 and seizure of wearing apparel of the victims as produced by the P. W. 6 vide Exhibit 15, the I. O. submitted chargesheet against the accused under section 302 of IPC. ( 3 ) THE accused/appellant has been charged under section 302 of IPC and in answer to the charge he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The defence of the accused/appellant as appearing from the trend of cross-examination and his examination under section 313 of Cr. PC is that he is innocent and he never confessed his guilt to any person and nor he assisted any body to recover the offending weapons. Before the Trial Court the prosecution could examine 11 witnesses and exhibited several documents including Material Exhibits I to viii. On the other hand, no evidence has been adduced by the accused/appellant in support of his defence. ( 4 ) LEARNED Trial Court on perusal of oral and documentary evidence on record relied upon the "extra-Judicial Confession" made by the accused before the co-villagers and also confessional statement made before P. W. 2, Birendra kumar Murmu, Village Chawkidar, and the fact that the deadbodies were found inside the room of the accused where he was seen by the co-villagers, and the fact that the recovery of offending weapon was also shown by the accused and on the basis of the statement made by him found the accused guilty even in the absence of any eye-witness to the occurrence. The learned Trial Judge on the basis of extra-judicial confession made by the accused and confessional statement made as indicated above and considering the facts and circumstances, convicted the appellant and sentenced him accordingly. Point for consideration: can we sustain the judgment dated 31st March, 2001 passed by the learned trial Court ? ( 5 ) MR. S. S. Roy, learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant, as state Defence with Miss. Point for consideration: can we sustain the judgment dated 31st March, 2001 passed by the learned trial Court ? ( 5 ) MR. S. S. Roy, learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant, as state Defence with Miss. Minoti Gomes drawing our attention to section 25 of the Evidence Act as also the oral evidence of P. W. 2, Birendra Kumar Murmu, village Chawkidar, submitted that the confession made by the accused/appellant before P. W. 2 as alleged by the prosecution should not be accepted as it is inadmissible in evidence. She further submitted that Village Chawkidar means a member of police service and therefore confession made before P. W. 2 should not be accepted by this Court. Miss. Gomes drawing our attention to the oral testimonies of P. W. 1, Chittaranjan Sardar, P. W. 3, Surendra Murmu, P. W. 5 provakar Sardar and P. W. 9 Rajen Sardar, submitted that the extra-judicial confession made before them by the accused should not be accepted by this court as the accused was detained and kept confined in his house and moreover, the oral testimonies of P. W. 1 does not support the prosecution case to the effect that the accused made any extra-judicial confession before him and other villagers indicated above. It is therefore submitted by Miss. Gomes that the accused neither made any confessional statement nor he made any extra-judicial confession before anybody and therefore the finding of the Trial Court with regard to the conviction of the appellant relying upon extra-judicial confession made by the appellant before the witnesses is not justified and, therefore, the order of conviction and sentence imposed upon him by the Trial Court should be set aside by this Court. ( 6 ) MR. K. J. Ahmed, learned Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the State, drawing our attention to section 25 of the Evidence Act as also the oral testimonies of P. W. 1, P. W. 2, P. W. 3, P. W. 4, P. W. 5 and P. W. 9 submitted that the accused/ appellant had made confessional statement before P. W. 2 and made extra-judicial confession before P. W. 1, P. W. 3, P. W. 5 and P. W. 9, therefore, the conviction of the appellant on the basis of such statement by the Trial Court was justified and it should be accepted. It is further submitted by him that in the circumstances, this Court should accept the verdict of the Trial Court. ( 7 ) SECTION 25 of the Evidence Act, reads as follows : "any confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence". ( 8 ) NOW the question is whether the confessional statement made before p. W. 2, Village Chawkidar should be accepted by this Court to warrant conviction of the accused. It transpires from the evidence that P. W. 2, Village Chawkidar is a relative of the accused and when he reached the P. O. he found that P. W. 1 and others are already there and the accused was detained and kept confined in his house and thereafter he visited the P. O. to collect information with regard to the crime. In a case reported in Vol. 3 CWN 1998-99, 393 (Queen Empress vs. Salemuddin Shaikh and Ors.) it has been held by the Division Bench that confession to a police officer which includes a Chawkidar within the meaning of section 25 of the Evidence Act, if at all made by the accused is inadmissible in evidence. That apart, in a Full Bench decision reported in AIR 1936 All 753 (Deokinandan vs. Emperor) it has been held by the Lordships that a Village chawkidar is a police officer and therefore confession made before him is inadmissible in evidence. In the circumstances, relying upon the above-mentioned two decisions, we are of the view, that P. W. 2 being Village Chawkidar is a police officer and therefore any confession made before him is inadmissible in evidence. Therefore, finding of the learned Trial Court in this regard cannot be accepted. Let us now consider whether the accused at all made any extra-judicial confession before P. W. 1, P. W. 3, P. W. 5 and P. W. 9. It transpired from the evidence that P. W. 1, Chittaranjan Sardar is the maker of the FIR the basis of which is suspicion. It is admitted by him that the accused made no extra-judicial confession before him and other villagers meaning thereby P. W. 2, P. W. 3, P. W. 5 and P. W. 9 and others. It transpired from the evidence that P. W. 1, Chittaranjan Sardar is the maker of the FIR the basis of which is suspicion. It is admitted by him that the accused made no extra-judicial confession before him and other villagers meaning thereby P. W. 2, P. W. 3, P. W. 5 and P. W. 9 and others. The oral testimony of P. W. 1 not only contradicts the written complaint (Exhibit 1 series) but it also contradicts the testimonies of P. W. 2, P. W. 3, P. W. 5, P. W. 9 and others with regard to the alleged extra-judicial confession. In the circumstances, the finding of the learned Trial court with regard to the extra-judicial confession made by the accused to the villagers cannot be accepted by us. The total effect of evidence clearly established that the accused neither made any confessional statement before police nor he made extra-judicial confession before any villagers. Moreover, the prosecution could not highlight credential of witnesses, reproduction of exact words, reason or motive for confession, selection of person in whom confidence reposed by the accused necessary for acceptance of extra-judicial confession. ( 9 ) IT is established in this case by the prosecution that both the victims, namely, Thandibala Sardar and Mittika Sardar died unnatural death because the P. M. reports, Exhibit 10, and Exhibit 9 proved by Dr. J. N. Dey, P. W. 8 confirmed such fact and this doctor who held P. M. examination of victims found several injuries of them injury No. 1 in both the cases was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. According to him the death was due to 1 he effect of injuries described in the report as anti-mortem and homicidal in nature. The doctor further opined that injury No. 1 in both the cases might have been caused by an axe, although the weapon was not produced before the doctor at the time of P. M. examination of the deadbodies of the victims. Be that as it may, it is submitted by learned Advocate Miss. Gomes that the seizure of katari and axe was not shown on the basis of the statement made by the accused, on the contrary, those were found inside the room beside the dead-bodies vide Exhibit VII (photographs) taken by P. W. 7 Samir Chand. Be that as it may, it is submitted by learned Advocate Miss. Gomes that the seizure of katari and axe was not shown on the basis of the statement made by the accused, on the contrary, those were found inside the room beside the dead-bodies vide Exhibit VII (photographs) taken by P. W. 7 Samir Chand. It is further submitted by her that all the seizure list vide Exhibits 4 to 8 were prepared by the I. O. at the police station, because the I. O. arrived at the P. O. at about 12. 30 hrs. and he left the P. O. at about 14 to 14. 30 hrs. on 1. 10. 97. It also submitted by her that the seized articles vide Material Exhibits I to VIII were admittedly not sent by I. O. for FSL examination and therefore in the circumstances the finding of the Trial Court to the effect that the accused actually killed the victims should not be accepted by this Court because there are several lacunas in the evidence adduced by the prosecution. It is therefore submitted by her that in the circumstances, the judgment passed by the learned Trial court should be set aside by this Court. ( 10 ) LEARNED Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State on the other hand submitted that the I. O. , P. W. 11, Shiv Prasad Singh, held proper investigation of the case and there are plethora of evidence to show that the accused actually killed the victims Thandibala Sardar, (mother) and Mittika Sardar (wife ). It is therefore submitted by him that the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court should be upheld by this Court as the prosecution has sufficiently proved their case against the accused/appellant. ( 11 ) IT is evidently clear that P. W. 11 recorded the statement of accused under section 161 Cr. PC and the said statement was never produced before the Trial Court. That apart, it has been highlighted that the offending weapons, namely, axe (Exhibit II) and katari (Exhibit I) were recovered as shown by the accused under seizure list vide Exhibit 4 series and the time of seizure as shown in the seizure list creates doubt in our mind as to where the seizure list were prepared. According to P. W. 9 the police arrived at the P. O. at about 12. According to P. W. 9 the police arrived at the P. O. at about 12. 30 p. m. and the time of preparation of inquest as shown in Exhibits 2 and 3 which had been interpolated otherwise confirms appearance of the police at 12. 30 p. m. and preparation of seizure lists at police station because according to P. W. 1 police left the P. O. at about 2. 00 - 2. 30 p. m. That apart Exhibit VII, photographs of victims lying in the room shows the existence of axe and katari beside the deadbodies. In the circumstances, the prosecution story that the axe and katari were recovered on the basis of the confessional statement made by the accused cannot be accepted as a convincing piece of evidence against the accused/ appellant. It appears from Exhibit 12 that the P. O. is situated at the distance of 10 kilometers away from P. S. and the FIR was recorded at 10. 30 a. m. It transpires from the evidence of P. W. 11 that he sent requisition to S. P. , Bankura for a car for carrying the deadbodies from the P. O. vide Exhibit 13 series and the preparation of seizure list and time shown for preparation of the seizure list (Exhibit 6) on 1. 10. 1997 between 10. 05 hrs. to 16. 25 hrs. cannot be accepted as true because according to P. W. 9, police came to P. O. at 12. 30 hrs. It transpires from the evidence of P. W. 1, Chittaranjan Sardar that the police left P. O. at about 2. 00 to 2. 30 p. m. i. e. 14. 00 to 14. 30 hrs. on 1. 10. 1997 and as such, preparation of seizure list vide Exhibits 4, 5, 6,7,8, and 15 as recorded at P. O. by I. O. , P. W. 11, starting from 10. 05 hrs, ending with 17. 00 hrs. is a myth. In the circumstances, it appears that all the seizure list referred to above were prepared at the P. S. by the I. O. and not at the P. O. The I. O. has not offered any explanation as to how and where the seizure lists were prepared in the context of contradictions revealed by the prosecution witnesses as well as documentary evidence. That apart the inquest reports of the victims vide Exhibits 2 and 3 show that the original time for commencing inquest had been interpolated and in this connection no explanation has been offered by the I. O. as to why he did not send the seized katari (Exhibit I) and axe (Exhibit II) and full-pant stained with blood, chatai and katha (Exhibit III) series to FSL for examination and report. It transpires from the evidence of prosecution witnesses that no label was pasted upon the seized articles for future identification and there is nothing to show that these Material Exhibits I, II and III were used by the accused for killing the victims namely Thandibala Sardar and Mittika Sardar. ( 12 ) THUS, considering the evidence on record as well as the attending circumstances of the case we are not inclined to uphold the findings of the learned Trial Judge with regard to the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant. Since there is no eye-witness of the incident and since the circumstances do not form a chain beyond any shadow of doubt pointing the accused/appellant as the person who killed the victims, we are unable to sustain the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court. Accordingly, we find that the appellant is not guilty to the charge and the appeal is therefore allowed. Appeal allowed.