JUDGMENT : R.C. Chavan, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the conviction of the appellant by the learned 1st Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Buldhana for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentences of life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- and R.I. for two years and fine of Rs.500/- respectively inflicted upon the appellant on the two counts. 2. The facts, which led to the prosecution and conviction of the appellant, are as under : Both the appellant and victim were residing together but away from their respective families. According to the prosecution due to some disputes the appellant murdered Gayabai by hitting her with stones on head and chest. The appellant then buried the dead body with intention that Gayabai's death should not come to light. After lapse of some time relatives of Gayabai made inquiries about her whereabouts. On 9.3.2003 the appellant made an extra judicial confession before Madan Ingle, the Police Patil of village Dongarshevali, and stated that he had murdered Gayabai and buried her dead body in the field. About nine days thereafter, a report of the incident was lodged with the police and the appellant was apprehended. In course of interrogation the appellant agreed to show the spot where dead body was buried and a memorandum was accordingly made. Since the dead body was required to be exhumed, Executive Magistrate had been requested to attend. In presence of Panchas, Investigating Officer and the Executive Magistrate, the appellant pointed out the spot where the dead body was buried. The body was exhumed and after an inquest sent for post-mortem examination. Police seized and sent incriminating articles to the Forensic Science Laboratory, recorded statements of witnesses and on completion of investigation sent charge-sheet to the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chikhli, who committed the case to the Court of Session at Buldhana. 3. Since the appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge of offences punishable under sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, the learned Additional Sessions Judge put the appellant on trial. The prosecution examined in all ten witnesses in its attempt to bring home the guilt of the accused. Upon consideration of the evidence tendered, the learned Additional Sessions Judge held the appellant guilty and convicted and sentenced him as aforementioned. Aggrieved thereby he has preferred this appeal. 4. We have heard Mr. The prosecution examined in all ten witnesses in its attempt to bring home the guilt of the accused. Upon consideration of the evidence tendered, the learned Additional Sessions Judge held the appellant guilty and convicted and sentenced him as aforementioned. Aggrieved thereby he has preferred this appeal. 4. We have heard Mr. R.M. Daga, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs. K.S. Joshi, the learned APP for the respondent/State. With the help of both the learned counsel, we have gone through the evidence tendered at the trial. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the case rests solely on circumstantial evidence and the only two circumstances pressed in aid by the prosecution are : extra judicial confession and discovery of the body at the instance of the appellant. The extra judicial confession was allegedly made in presence of PW 3 Madan, Police Patil of village Dongarshevali and PW 4 Sk. Usman, in whose presence the Police Patil is stated to have recorded the extra judicial confession. The evidence of PW 3 Madan shows that without any rhyme or reason on 9.3.2003, as if overcome by remorse, the appellant came to the house of Police Patil and disclosed about Gayabai's murder and burial of her dead body. Police Patil then claims to have called two panchas, one of whom was PW 4 Sk. Usman. The appellant is stated to have repeated the confession in presence of the witnesses, which the Police Patil claims having recorded. He then stated that he made a report to the Police at Exh.36. 6. If PW 3 Madan had indeed heard of a confessional statement of the appellant and had made a record of it, there is no reason why such statement has not been placed on record. Further the reports at Exh.36 and 37 by Madan do not refer to any such extra judicial confession. 7. PW 4 Sk. Usman claimed that on 9.3.2003 he went to the house of Police Patil on being called there. He states that thereafter appellant came to the house of Police Patil and then disclosed that when the appellant was intending to go with Gayabai for singing Bhajan, there was a quarrel; he slapped Gayabai; she fell on a stone and expired and he buried her body in the forest. Thus, the evidence of this witness is different from that of PW 3 Madan. Thus, the evidence of this witness is different from that of PW 3 Madan. Therefore, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, even the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly not accepted the evidence in respect of extra judicial confession, as observed by the learned Judge in para 24 of his judgment. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant was right in submitting that if the Police Patil received information on 9.3.2003 about murder and burial of dead body, it is not clear as to what prompted the Police Patil to retain such information with him for 9 days and file a report only on 18.3.2003. Secondly, since the Police already knew that the dead body was buried in a field, there would have been no occasion for the appellant to make a statement leading to such a discovery as deposed to by PW 2 Manohar or PW 10 API Palve. Once police came to know vide report dated 18.3.2003 that the body was buried in the field of the appellant, a memorandum of statement made by the appellant or resultant discovery become artificial. Therefore, this discovery should not have been relied on by the learned trial Judge for holding that the appellant had murdered Gayabai or had buried her dead body. 9. In view of this, we allow the appeal and set aside the appellant's conviction and sentences imposed upon him for the offences punishable under sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Instead, the appellant is acquitted of the offences charged. The appellant shall be set at liberty, if not wanted in any other case. Appeal allowed