JUDGMENT BALDEV SINGH, J. 1. Shish Pal and Ishwar, both sons of Ram Dia, have filed this appeal against the impugned judgment dated January 08, 1997 and sentence order dated January 11, 1997, passed by Sh.B.S. Sharma, the then Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, in case First Information Report No.767 dated December 29, 1994, registered under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) at Police Station Sadar, Karnal. 2. Both the appellants were convicted under Sections 302 and 201 of the Code and each of them was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I for six months under Section 302 of the Code. Each of them was further sentenced to undergo R.I for three years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I for six months under Section 201 of the Code. 3. It is prayed that the conviction of the appellants is illegal and untenable and the impugned judgment and the sentence order are liable to be set aside by way of acceptance of this appeal and the appellants be acquitted of the charges framed against them under Sections 302 and 201 of the Code. 4. The facts of the prosecution case are that on December 25, 1994, P.W.15 Sube Singh, Sub Inspector, was posted as Station House Officer of Police Station Madlauda. He registered criminal case under First Information Report No.294 dated December 25, 1994, under Sections 364, 302, 201 read with Section 34 of the Code on the statement of Smt.Santosh Rani wife of Raj Kumar resident of Kokat against these appellants Shish Pal and Ishwar. 5. On December 28, 1994, both the appellants were interrogated by P.W .15 Sube Singh, Sub Inspector, in the aforestated case registered under First Information Report No.294. Shish Pal (appellant) disclosed before Sube Singh, Sub Inspector, Om Parkash, Head Constable and Surat Singh, Constable, that on August 28, 1994, he, Ishwar (appellant) and Chatru son of Tek Ram, caste Jhinwar, resident of Muana killed Raj Kumar by throttling his neck with a ‘Parna’ and then threw his body in the flowing water of the river in the area of the forests of Village Bohli. Further, Shish Pal (appellant) disclosed before them that on the night intervening 5th/6th November, 1994, he and Ishwar (appellant) brought Chatru son of Tek Ram, caste Jhinwar, resident of Muana and murdered him with a knife and dumped his dead body under the sand by the side of Yamuna river in the area of Village Nasirpur and had also concealed the knife there. Disclosure statement of Shish Pal (appellant) Exhibit P.C was reduced into writing by P.W.15 Sube Singh, Sub Inspector. It was attested by Om Parkash, Head Constable and Surat Singh, Constable. To the similar effect Ishwar (appellant) made disclosure statement before Sube Singh, Sub Inspector, Om Parkash, Head Constable and Surat Singh, Constable. That was also reduced into writing, which is Exhibit P.D. These disclosure statements were sent by P. W. Sube Singh, Sub Inspector, through Constable Mohinder Singh to Police Station Sadar, Karnal, upon which the present case under First Information Report No.767 under Sections 302 and 201 of the Code was registered at Police Station Sadar, Karnal, on December 29, 1994. Exhibit P.H is copy of First Information Report, which Mohinder Kumar, Sub Inspector, had scribed. 6. The investigation of this case was handed over to P.W.16 Karta Ram, Assistant Sub Inspector. He obtained police remand of both the appellants. They were in his custody. On January 03, 1995, he joined with him Suresh Kumar, Head Constable, Anoop Singh, Head Constable and Shri Krishan, Constable. Bhagia Ram son of Tek Ram and Moti Ram son of Ramna Singh were also joined in the police party. They went to Kunjpura and from there they reached Nasirpur. They reached the bank of Yamuna river. After some time, P.W.17 Dr.M.K. Goel, Assistant Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban, with his team and Ram Niwas, Photographer, reached there. Intimation had been sent to them to come to that place. Ishwar (appellant) took the police officials and the persons accompanying them to the bank of the Yamuna river and he pointed out a place whereat he and Shish Pal (appellant) had buried the dead body of Chatru son of Tek Ram, caste Jhinwar, resident of Muana . Demarcation memo Exhibit P.M was prepared, which was signed by Shish Pal (appellant) and was attested by P.Ws Babu Ram and Madan Lal. Demarcation memo Exhibit P.M was prepared, which was signed by Shish Pal (appellant) and was attested by P.Ws Babu Ram and Madan Lal. Then Shish Pal (appellant) took them to the same place and pointed out that the dead body of Chatru son of Tek Ram, caste Jhinwar, resident of Muana was concealed there. Demarcation memo Exhibit P.N was prepared, which Shish Pal (appellant) signed and P.Ws’ Babu Ram and Madan Lal attested. Then P.Ws Bhagia Ram and Moti Ram were called to the place and in their presence both the appellants removed sand of Yamuna river and got recovered the dead body of Chatru, which was identified by P.Ws. Bhagia Ram and Moti Ram. Recovery memo-cum- identification memo Exhibit P.T was prepared, which was attested by these witnesses. Exhibit P.V site plan was prepared showing the place from where the dead body was recovered. Thereafter Dr.M.K.Goel, Assistant Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban, and his team inspected the dead body. A knife and some papers were recovered from the pocket of the shirt, which was on the dead body. These were taken into possession vide recovery memo Exhibit P.O. Inquest report was prepared by Karta Ram, Assistant Sub Inspector. 7. P.W.1 Dr. Vijay Pal, on January 04, 1995, at 11.50 A.M, while posted as Senior Resident in Forensic Medicine in Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Rohtak, conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Chatru, which was identified by P.W Bhagia Ram, elder brother of deceased Chatru and P.W. Moti Ram son of Ramna Singh, a neighbour of the deceased. The observations of Dr. Vijay Pal on examining the dead body were as under: “The dead body was in a partially skeletonised state. It. was found to be wearing (i) a dirty light bluish Kurta in Situ only around the right of upper extremity with a titch button intact and closed at cuff and elsewhere the Kurta was torn in multiple pieces. Left seam overlying the left upper extremity being torn and lying separate from the body, (ii) a dirty light bluish Pajama with the nada (string) tied and intact in Situ, torn at places. A dirty while rusted metallic key tied with the string. The body and clothes were smudged with sand. The clothes were also smudged with decomposed tissues. The body was emitting foul smell. A dirty while rusted metallic key tied with the string. The body and clothes were smudged with sand. The clothes were also smudged with decomposed tissues. The body was emitting foul smell. Epidermis and skin were pealed off from both the lower extremities. The following bones were devoid of overlying structures including muscles, sub-cutaneous tissues and skin. The skull along with facial bones including maxilla exposed from all sides. Skull was completely devoid of overlying scalp and only a few ligaments were attached to its base. The facial bones were also completely devoid of overlying tissues, both the orbits being empty. The skull and mandible were lying separate. from each other from the rest of the body. The skin, subcutaneous tissues and muscles were missing from all around the neck, anterior and posterior aspect of the thorax and lateral aspect of abdomen on the left side. The upper 4 (cervical-l to cervical-4) cervical vertebrae were missing. Rest of the cervical vertebrae were exposed from all sides. Both clavicles, sternum and ribs on both sides were exposed and lying loosely articulated at their joints. Thoracic walls could not be approximated. Left upper extremity could not be approximated. The left humerus (completely exposed) lying separate from rest of the body and showed gnawing effects at its upper and lower ends. Bones of left forearm (radius and ulna) exposed and lying disarticulated from rest of the body. Right hand and both the feet were degloved. Approximated length of the body was 5 feet and 8 inches. Left scapula lying separate from rest of the body and showed gnawing effects over all around its borders and spine. All permanent teeth had erupted. However, right upper first molar, right lower first molar and left lower first molar were missing and their sockets were absorbed. Central upper incisor right upper canine and second pre-molar and right upper third molar, all four incisors of lower jaw and right canine were missing and their sockets were empty. The available teeth were loosened in their respective socket and showed moderate grinding. The ends of long bones including medial end of both clavicles fused, body of sternum fused, xiphisternum were also fused but manubrium was not fused. Sacrum was fused, cranial sutures namely saggital coronal and lambdoid were obliterated on endocranium and saggital and coronal sutures were obliterated on the outer table and skull also. The ends of long bones including medial end of both clavicles fused, body of sternum fused, xiphisternum were also fused but manubrium was not fused. Sacrum was fused, cranial sutures namely saggital coronal and lambdoid were obliterated on endocranium and saggital and coronal sutures were obliterated on the outer table and skull also. Brain was liquified and consisted of paste like material. Membrances were missing. Pleurae were decomposed. Larynx and trachea were missing. The organs including lungs, heart and large blood vessels were not identifiable individually in chest cavity and only a liquified blackish mass was present in the chest cavity on both sides. Petitoneum was decomposed. Mouth and pharynx could not be approximated. Oesophagus and stomach were missing. The small and large intestines were not identifiable individually. However, a part of loop of gut was identifiable in the pelvic region containing small amount of faecal matter. Liver was softened and defused with post mortem bullae present at places and injured as described under injuries. Spleen was not identifiable. Both kidneys were Softened and defused. Bladder was empty. Stump of penis was identifiable. Pubic hairs were black, curly and 2-3 cms in size. Scrotal sacs were missing. Internal organs of generation were softened. He noticed the following injuries on the dead body: “1. A sharp cut measuring 7 x 4.5 cms transversely placed over posteriors aspect of right shoulder. The lateral half of spine of right scapula is cut in its posterior 1/3rd along with a sharp cut over posterior aspect of head of right humerus. The deeper tissues in the vicinity showed infiltration of blood along with in the cut segments of bones. 2. Right hand was amputated through and through at a level 2.5 cms below the right joint. The hand lying separated from the forearm and only a tag of skin joined it with the forearm on lateral aspect. The skin, subcutaneous tissues muscles, tendons and the carpal bones were cleanly cut through with ecchymosis of the soft tissues and infiltration of blood in the cut segments of the bones. 3. A sharp cut measuring 4 x 2.5 cms present over the dorsum of right hand transverse plan at its middle. The skin, subcutaneous tissues, including muscles and their tendons were cleanly cut in the depth of the would along with bevelling cut of the upper 1/3rd of third metacarpal on its posterior aspect. 3. A sharp cut measuring 4 x 2.5 cms present over the dorsum of right hand transverse plan at its middle. The skin, subcutaneous tissues, including muscles and their tendons were cleanly cut in the depth of the would along with bevelling cut of the upper 1/3rd of third metacarpal on its posterior aspect. The soft tissues, in. the vicinity were ecchymosed and the cut portions of the metacarpal showed infiltration of blood in its traveculae. 4. A stab wound measuring 3 x 1.5 cm present over right hypochandrium in oblique direction, 3.5 cms below the right costal margin (on approximation) and 6. cms away from mid line. The wound was directed anteroposteriorly with tailing effect at the lower end of the wound and had pierced the deeper tissues and right lobe of liver on its way. The soft tissues were acchymosed and abdominal cavity in the region of the stab wound was full of blood with a few blood clots. 5.A stab wound measuring 5 cms x 3 cms present over abdomen in mid-line at a level 3 cms above the umbilicus. The wound was directed anteroposteriorly and had pierced the deeper tissues to give a nick (cut) in vertical plane over the body of 2nd lumbar vertebra on its anterior aspect with infiltration of blood in the trabeculae of vertebral body and the cut segment of the vertebra. 6. A stab wound measuring 3.5 cms x 2 cms was present over anterior abdominal wall, vertically oblique 2.5 cms lateral to the umbilicus on the left side. It was directed anteroposteriorly and medially. It had pierced the deeper tissues on its way which showed infiltration of blood. 7. A stab wound measuring 4 cms x 2cms present in vertical direction on right side of abdomen 2 cms away from mid- line and 6 cms above the pubic symphysis. It was directed above downwards and extended deep anteroposteriorly to pierce the loops of gut in the pelvic region. Subcutaneous tissues were ecchymosed. 8. A stab wound measuring 3.5 cms x 2 cms present over right side of abdomen, 4.5 cms below umbilicus and 3.8 cms away from mid-line. It was directed anteroposteriorly and medially to pierce the deeper tissues which were ecchymosed. 9. Subcutaneous tissues were ecchymosed. 8. A stab wound measuring 3.5 cms x 2 cms present over right side of abdomen, 4.5 cms below umbilicus and 3.8 cms away from mid-line. It was directed anteroposteriorly and medially to pierce the deeper tissues which were ecchymosed. 9. A stab wound measuring 4 x 2.5 cms present in vertical plane over the left side of abdomen, 8 cms above left iliac crest and 12cms from mid-line. It was directed anteroposteriorly to pass through deeper tissues. Left kidney was pierced at its upper pole and there was collection of liquid blood along with a few blood clots in the retroperitoneal tissues. The soft tissues were ecchymosed. 7. The cause of death in the opinion of the Doctor was the injuries described above, which were ante mortem, homicidal, caused by pointed and heavy sharp cutting weapons and were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. It was opined that the death was instantaneous and the probable time that elapsed between death and autopsy could be about two months. The dead body and all the relevant papers were handed over to the police. Exhibit P.A is copy of the post mortem report. On March 06, 1995, opinion of Dr.Vijay Pal was obtained, which is Exhibit P.B1. He made report that injuries Nos.1 to 3 could be caused by ‘Dah’ and the remaining injuries could be caused by a knife. ‘Dah’ Exhibit P.3 and knife Exhibit P4 were shown to him. On January 04, 1995, P.W.16 Karta Ram, Assistant Sub Inspector, in the presence of Suresh Kumar, Head Constable and P.W Pirthi Singh son of Dulla Ram interrogated Ishwarr (appellant). He disclosed that he had concealed a’ Dah’ under the heap of , ‘Parali’ in his fields in Village Nasirpur. He offered to get it recovered. His disclosure statement Exhibit P.P was reduced into writing. Shish Pal (appellant), on interrogation, also disclosed that he had concealed a knife in the husk of grass hut in the field of Ishwar (appellant). His disclosure statement Exhibit P.Q was also reduced into writing. Then both the appellants, in pursuance of their disclosure statements, got recovered ‘Dah’ Exhibit P.3 and knife Exhibit P4. Their sketches were prepared. These were sealed into separate parcels and were taken into possession vide separate recovery memos. 8. His disclosure statement Exhibit P.Q was also reduced into writing. Then both the appellants, in pursuance of their disclosure statements, got recovered ‘Dah’ Exhibit P.3 and knife Exhibit P4. Their sketches were prepared. These were sealed into separate parcels and were taken into possession vide separate recovery memos. 8. On completion of the investigation, P.W.2 Fateh Singh, Inspector/Station House Officer of Police Station Sadar, Kamal, prepared the challan for trial of the appellants. 9. The case was committed to the Court of Session for trial. Charge for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Code was framed against the appellants, to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 10. The prosecution, at the trial, examined seventeen witnesses, namely, P.W.1 Dr.Vijay Pal, P.W.2 Fateh Singh, Inspector, P. W.3 Inderjit Singh, Translator, P.W4 Bhoop Singh, Patwari, P.W.5 Jasbir Singh, Moharrir Head Constable, P.W.6 Baljit Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, P.W.7 Mohinder Kumar, Sub Inspector, P.W.8 Mange Ram, Constable, P.W.9 Ranbir Singh, Constable, P.W.10 Anoop Singh, Head Constable, P.W.11 Devi Singh, P.W.12 Babu Ram, P.W.13 Pirthi, P.W.14 Bhagia Ram, P.W.15 Sube Singh, Sub Inspector, P.W.16 Karta Ram, Assistant Sub Inspector and P.W.17 Dr.M.K. Goel. They proved various documents, which are on the file. 11. Statements of both the appellants were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They denied the prosecution allegations and complained of their false implicity in this case on account of land dispute with P.Ws Pirthi and Babu Ram. In defence, they produced documents showing their enmity with P.Ws Pirthi and Babu Ram. 12. Arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the appellants and of the Senior Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the respondent State, were heard and the evidence was scrutinised with their help. 13. The Ld. Counsel for the appellants argued that the impugned judgment and the sentence order are untenable and are liable to be set aside. Both the appellants were convicted on the basis of evidence which was incredible and inadmissible. 14. Two points arise for determination. One, whether the disclosure statements allegedly made by the appellants are admissible in evidence. Two, whether the dead body of Chatru son of Tek Ram, caste Jhinwar, resident of Muana, alleged to have been recovered in pursuance of the disclosure statements of the appellants, was capable of being identified by his brother P.W.14 Bhagia Ram and Moti Ram son of Ramna Singh. 15. Two, whether the dead body of Chatru son of Tek Ram, caste Jhinwar, resident of Muana, alleged to have been recovered in pursuance of the disclosure statements of the appellants, was capable of being identified by his brother P.W.14 Bhagia Ram and Moti Ram son of Ramna Singh. 15. The prosecution examined P.W.15 Sube Singh, Sub Inspector. He deposed that on December 28, 1994, he interrogated both the appellants turn by turn and they disclosed before him in the presence of Om Parkash, Head Constable and Surat Singh, Constable, that on August 28, 1994, they along with Chatru son of Tek Ram, caste Jhinwar, resident of Muana had committed the murder of Raj Kumar by throttling his neck with a ‘Parna’ in the forest area of Village Bohli and they had thrown his dead body in the flowing water of the Yamuna river. Further, they had disclosed before him in the presence of the aforesaid witnesses that on the night intervening 5th/6th November, 1994, they had brought Chatru son of Tek Ram, caste Jhinwar, resident of Muana in the area of Village Nasirpur by the side of the bank of Yamuna river and they had murdered him with a knife and then had concealed his dead body under the sand and had buried the knife along with it. Disclosure statement of Shish Pal (appellant) is Exhibit P.C and disclosure statement of Ishwar (appellant) is Exhibit P.D. These disclosure statements were allegedly recorded on December 28, 1994, on which the appellants appended their signatures and these were also attested by Om Parkash, Head Constable and Surat Singh, Constable. On the basis of these disclosure statements, P.W.15 Sube Singh, Sub Inspector, had got the present case registered against the appellants in Police Station Sadar, Karnal. The investigation of the case was taken over by Karta Ram, Assistant Sub Inspector, who on January 03, 1995, reached Police Station Sadar, Karnal. Both the appellants were in his custody. Bhagia Ram and Moti Ram were joined in the police party. Dr.M.K.Goel, Assistant Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban, and members of his team, Ram Niwas, Photographer, and other persons were also joined in the police party. They reached the bank of Yamuna river in the area of Village Nasirpur. Both the appellants were in his custody. Bhagia Ram and Moti Ram were joined in the police party. Dr.M.K.Goel, Assistant Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban, and members of his team, Ram Niwas, Photographer, and other persons were also joined in the police party. They reached the bank of Yamuna river in the area of Village Nasirpur. The prosecution examined P.W.16 Karta Ram, Assistant Sub Inspector, who deposed that both the appellants, turn by turn, pointed out the place where they had allegedly buried the dead body of Chatru son of Tek Ram, caste Jhinwar, resident of Muana. Demarcation memos Exhibits P.M. and P.N were prepared. They, then got recovered the dead body of Chatru, which. was identified by Bhagia Ram and Moti Ram. Recovery-cum- identification memo Exhibit P.T was prepared. Dr.M.K. Goel had given his report on examining the dead body, which is Exhibit P.Y. He had got taken some photographs of the dead body. Now, the question arises whether the disclosure statements Exhibits P.C and P.D made by the appellants on December 28, 1994, are admissible in evidence. These are certainly not admissible in evidence and are hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act. These amount to confession before the police officials, which is not at all permissible under law. P.W.15 Sube Singh, Sub Inspector, had scribed these disclosure statements and Om Parkash, Head Constable and Surat Singh, Constable, had attested them. No recovery was effected pursuant to these disclosure statements on December 28, 1994 when these were allegedly recorded. Recovery of the dead body was made on January 03, 1995. The place where the dead body was allegedly buried was disclosed to the police officials on December 28, 1994, and the alleged recovery made on January 03, 1995, would be hit under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The police already knew where the dead body was lying and the pointing out of the place by the appellants on January 03, 1995, is nothing but a concoction. The conviction of both the appellants could not be based at all on their disclosure statements Exhibits P.C and P.D, made before the police officials. The impugned judgment is perverse. This is one aspect of the case. 16. Now, the question arises whether the dead body was identified unmistakenly of Chatru son of Tek Ram, caste Jhinwar, resident of Muana. The conviction of both the appellants could not be based at all on their disclosure statements Exhibits P.C and P.D, made before the police officials. The impugned judgment is perverse. This is one aspect of the case. 16. Now, the question arises whether the dead body was identified unmistakenly of Chatru son of Tek Ram, caste Jhinwar, resident of Muana. It was identified by P.W.14 Bhagia Ram, brother of deceased Chatru and by P.W Moti Ram. Moti Ram has not been examined by the prosecution. Then remains the sole testimony of P.W.14 Bhagia Ram. It is not at all credible. According to him, on January 03, 1995, the police officials took him, Moti Ram and others by the side of the bank of Yamuna river in the area of Village Nasirpur and dead body of Chatru was recovered at the instance of both the appellants. He further deposed that the dead body was identified by him to be of his brother Chatru. The police prepared recovery-cum-identification memo to this effect, which is Exhibit P.T. It was thumb-marked by him. His evidence reveals that Chatru had left their house 15/16 years before his death and they were not aware of his whereabouts. At that time, he was aged about 35/36 years and he had no wife and children. They did not lodge any report in any Police Station regarding the leaving of the house by Chatru. P.W.14 Bhagia Ram cannot be believed when he deposed that the dead body was identifiable and it was not in a rotten/decomposed condition and was not stinking. His statement is contradictory to the statements of P.W.1 Dr. Vijay Pal and P.W.17 Dr.M.K.Goel, who had examined the dead body at the spot and had given report Exhibit P.Y. It is also contradictory to the statement of P.W.16 Karta Ram, Assistant Sub Inspector, who is the Investigating Officer and under whose supervision the dead body was recovered. According to P.W.16 Karta Ram, Assistant Sub Inspector, there was skin over the body except the head, but the body was in decomposed condition. Further that there was no skin over the face of the dead body and from the face nobody could say as to whose dead body it was. P.W.17 Dr.M.K.Goel deposed that the dead body was found buried in sand on the bank of Yamuna river. Further that there was no skin over the face of the dead body and from the face nobody could say as to whose dead body it was. P.W.17 Dr.M.K.Goel deposed that the dead body was found buried in sand on the bank of Yamuna river. Head of the deceased was found to be totally devoid of skin and male features were observed on the skull. He further deposed that some left part of the chest was completely decomposed. From the skull itself the body was not identifiable by a layman. He deposed that he could not say as to how long ago the body had been dumped in sand. Statement of P.W.l Dr.Vijay Pal reveals that the dead body was in a partially skeletonised . state. It was emitting foul smell. He admitted in cross-examination that,- “ the body was decomposed and was almost a skeleton and it was not possible at all to identify the body”. 17. So, from the evidence on the record, it is established that a skeletonised dead body was recovered and it could not be said with certitude that it was the dead body of Chatru son of Tek Ram, caste Jhinwar, resident of Muana. A vain effort was made by examining P. W.14 Bhagia Ram, who claimed to have identified the dead body to be of his long time back missing brother Chatru. The impugned judgment also suffers from this infirmity. 18. We have scanned the evidence and we find that the impugned judgment is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The appeal is, therefore, allowed, the impugnedjudgment and the sentence order are set aside and the appellants judgment and the sentence are acquitted of the charges framed against them for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Code.