B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.:- The appellant - accused has challenged the judgment dated 29-10-2001 delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gondia in Sessions Trial No.3 of 2000, finding him guilty for an offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and convicting him to suffer imprisonment for life. In addition, he has also been directed to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the present appellant - accused has on 21-111999 killed his wife Ramkalabai. On that day, deceased Ramkalabai had gone to field of one Bhadupote for collecting dung and appellant followed her. At about 6.30 A.M. when she was in the field of Bhadupote, the accused throttled Ramkalabai and when she became unconscious, he dropped her in the well. She died due to drowning. He thereafter went to police station Gondia (Rural) and lodged oral complaint vide Exh.33. P.S.O. Choube recorded the complaint and he registered the crime under Section 302 vide First Information Report Exh.34. Dy. S. P. Shinde took the charge of investigation and went to spot along with the staff of the fire-brigade and appellant. The body of deceased was taken out from Well and inquest panchanama was prepared. Dy. S. P. also seized one bed sheet and one basket which was used for collecting dung. The spot panchanama was also prepared and the dead body was then sent for post mortem. The Medical Officer after completing post mortem reported that Ramkalabai died as a result of drowning. The police authorities also seized clothes and ornaments which were on the person of the deceased and also collected sample of her blood. Statements of material witnesses were recorded to support the case that the appellant was suspecting chastity of deceased and she was also subjected to cruelty on earlier occasion. After completing the investigation, Dy. S. P. Shinde submitted charge-sheet before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gondia. The J.M.F.C. thereafter committed the matter for trial to the Sessions Court. The Additional Sessions Judge framed charges and explained the same to appellant who pleaded not guilty. The trial commenced and as stated above, the appellant/accused was found guilty and punished. 3. Heard Shri. Kharkate, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri. Jaiswal. APP for the respondent. 4. The J.M.F.C. thereafter committed the matter for trial to the Sessions Court. The Additional Sessions Judge framed charges and explained the same to appellant who pleaded not guilty. The trial commenced and as stated above, the appellant/accused was found guilty and punished. 3. Heard Shri. Kharkate, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri. Jaiswal. APP for the respondent. 4. Shri. Kharkate, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that there is no eye-witnesses and the case of prosecution is based only on FIR lodged by the appellant and also on other circumstances. He argues that the inculpatory FIR could not have been looked into and in support he placed reliance upon several judgments. The judgment in A. Nagesia Vs. State of Bihar, reported at AIR 1966 SC 119 and recent judgment in Vetal Bhagwan MandIe Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported at 2006 ALL MR (Cri) 367, are also cited by him in support. He has taken the Court through the evidence on record to substantiate his contention that no link between the appellant and the alleged crime has been established. He argues that motive for committing such an offence is also not proved, on the contrary as per prosecution story, the appellant - accused had called P.W.2 for assisting him to take out his wife from the well. He contends that there is total non-application of mind and hence the impugned judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. As against this, Shri Jaiswal, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has stated that the appellant was suspecting chastity of his wife and therefore he had on earlier occasion also inflicted serious injuries on her. He has further contended that he was seen near the well from which body of the deceased was recovered by P.W.12. He further states the First Information Report in this respect was lodged by the appellant himself and the offence was registered in view of said FIR. He contended that the appellant did not try to help his wife who had fallen in the well and hence in totality of the circumstances, commission of offence is proved. He relies upon the evidence in this respect on record and contends that said evidence substantiated the findings reached by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 6. The law on the inculpatory FIR is well settled. The Hon'ble Court in A. Nagesia Vs. He relies upon the evidence in this respect on record and contends that said evidence substantiated the findings reached by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 6. The law on the inculpatory FIR is well settled. The Hon'ble Court in A. Nagesia Vs. State of Bihar, reported at AIR 1966 SC 119 , considered this issue and has held that Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for recording of the first information and it is not substantive evidence. It may be used to corroborate the information under Section 157 of the Evidence Act or to contradict him under Section 145 of the Act, if the informant is called as a witness. If the first information is given by the accused himself, the fact of his giving the information is admissible against him as evidence of his conduct under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. If the information is a non-confessional statement, it is admissible against the accused as an admission under Section 21 of the Evidence Act. But a confessional first information report to a police officer cannot be used against the accused in view of Section 25 of the Evidence Act. It is not necessary to refer to this judgment in detail because the Division Bench of this Court to which one of us (J. N. Patel, J.) was party, has in ruling reported at 2006 ALL MR (Cri) 367 (supra) considered this ruling in somewhat similar circumstances. The observations made in para 12 are important and said observations are: "12. Shortly put, a confession may be defined as an admission of the offence by a person charged with the offence. A statement which contains self-exculpatory matter cannot amount to a confession, if the exculpatory statement is of some fact which, if true, would negative the offence alleged to be confessed. If an admission of an accused is to be used against him, the whole of it should be tendered in evidence, and if part of the admission is exculpatory and part inculpatory, the prosecution is not at liberty to use in evidence the inculpatory part only. See Hanumant Govind Vs. State of M. P., 1952 SCR 1091 at p.1111 : ( AIR 1952 SC 343 at p.350) and 1953 SCR 94 : ( AIR 1952 SC 354 ). See Hanumant Govind Vs. State of M. P., 1952 SCR 1091 at p.1111 : ( AIR 1952 SC 343 at p.350) and 1953 SCR 94 : ( AIR 1952 SC 354 ). The accused is entitled to insist that the entire admission including the exculpatory part must be tendered in evidence. But this principle is of no assistance to the accused where no part of his statement is self-exculpatory, and the prosecution intends to use the whole of the statement against the accused." 7. From the above judgment of the Division Bench, it is apparent that the confession may consist of several parts including one relating to motive, preparation, opportunity, provocation, weapons used etc. Each part may disclose some incriminating fact and use of even such part is, therefore, not permissible. In view of provisions of Section 25 of Evidence Act, such confessional statement cannot be looked into. The bar in this respect is lifted partially by Section 27 thereof. However, as already observed above, there is no discovery panchanama and it is not established that the body of deceased was recovered in view of disclosure made by the appellant/accused. The plea of accused in his statement under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code is that of total denial. The trial Court has relied upon evidence of PW-2 Chandan to hold that the appellant accused was present near the well at the time of incident. However, that by itself cannot be an incriminating circumstance. The fact that the appellant/accused had called PW-2 near well as disclosed by PW-2 also cannot be lost sight of. If the appellant/accused had killed his wife, such conduct on his part cannot be explained. We find that the presence of appellant near well is not proved. Recovery of body of deceased due to disclosure made by him is also not proved and the homicidal death of deceased is also not proved. As observed by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mohan Shrawan Bhoir Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported at 2004 ALL MR (Cri) 2024, it at the most becomes a case of serious suspicion, but it is not sufficient to hold the appellant guilty of commission of impugned offence. All the circumstances taken cumulatively do not form a chain so complete as to leave no escape from conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by accused and none else. All the circumstances taken cumulatively do not form a chain so complete as to leave no escape from conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by accused and none else. 8. In the facts of case before this Court, the situation is identical. Each part of this statement discloses some incriminating effect and being part of a confessional statement partake the character of confession. The appellant has in his report stated that he followed her at about 6.30 or 7.00 O'clock on 21-11-1999, caught her, fell her on ground and throttled and killed her near the reservoir in the garden. Thereafter, he threw her into the well in the garden and left that place. He met uncle Chandan Yelsare (PW-2) on way and he told him that he has killed his wife by throttling and threw her into the well. Thereafter he came to police station for lodging report. In view of the above referred para 12, it is apparent that these statements or the motive given by him for assaulting his wife, could not have been relied upon and cannot be relied upon by the prosecution against the appellant. 9. The perusal of evidence of Chandan Yelsare (PW-2) shows that at about 7.30 A.M. he was going to attend the call of nature and at that time the appellant who was standing near the well of Bhadupote, called him to come there. He did not go. When he returned back after attending the call of nature, he did not see the appellant at that place. He, therefore, went to his home. This witness, has therefore not disclosed that appellant met him and disclosed that he had killed his wife. He at the most only states that he saw appellant standing near the well. Holiram Yelsare (PW3) is witness in whose presence seizure panchanama Exh.18 was prepared and he has stated that one basket used for collecting dung, not belonging to owner Bhadupote, was seized by police. Budhram Biranwar (PW -4) is father-in-law of accused and he has deposed about injuries earlier inflicted by accused upon his daughter. However, in cross, he has stated that he was not aware of any quarrel between his daughter and accused. He has further stated that the relations between the two were cordial. Jankibai Garde (PW -5) is the sister of mother of appellant - accused. However, in cross, he has stated that he was not aware of any quarrel between his daughter and accused. He has further stated that the relations between the two were cordial. Jankibai Garde (PW -5) is the sister of mother of appellant - accused. She has turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution. From her cross-examination, it appears that effort of prosecution was only to show the past constrained relations between appellant and his wife. Radhelal Ramlal Chikhlondhe (PW-6) is the witness on inquest and spot panchanama. PW-7 and PW-8 are witnesses on seizure panchanama and they turned hostile. Ramakant Choube (PW-9) is Police Inspector, who has proved the report at Exh.33 and FIR at Exh.34. P.W.10 is Police Sub-Inspector of Lakhandur, who has been examined to prove the incident which had taken place in September, 1999. PW -11 is the Medical Officer where deceased took treatment in September, 1999 as she was stabbed by means of knife. PW-12 is the Investigating Officer. Thus, perusal of entire evidence on record reveals that there is absolutely no material which shows that the accused - appellant throttled his wife and then threw her in well. The post-mortem report (Exh.28) does not mention any external or internal injury against column Nos.1? & 18. The cause of death is disclosed as asphyxia due to drowning. It is, therefore, clear that death has taken place due to drowning and not by throttling. Even if statement of P.W.2 that he saw accused near well is accepted, still it has come on record that accused had called him near the well and he told accused that he would first attend call of nature and then come. 10. The learned Additional Sessions Court has relied upon the evidence ofP.W.2 to accept presence of accused near the well in which dead body of his wife was found. Second incriminating circumstance on which the learned Additional Sessions Judge has placed reliance is discovery of dead body at the instance of appellant and his subsequent conduct. Again, it is to be noted that the dead body was in the well and it was not discovered as has been observed by the said Court. There is no other incriminating material seized either from the appellant or from the well. Again, it is to be noted that the dead body was in the well and it was not discovered as has been observed by the said Court. There is no other incriminating material seized either from the appellant or from the well. The reliance by the said Court upon past conduct or ill-treatment by the appellant to the deceased is also not relevant because that incident had taken place in September, 1999 and that by itself cannot implicate the appellant in the matter. The evidence of father of deceased has revealed that the relations between the deceased and appellant were cordial. 11. In these circumstances, we find that the throttling of deceased by the appellant or alleged throwing of deceased by the appellant into well is not proved at all. The finding of dead body from the well cannot be a circumstance sufficient to hold the appellant guilty in this respect. The motive in the matter is also not proved because the appellant and his wife were staying together. There is nothing on record to show that the appellant had doubted chastity of the deceased. It is, therefore, difficult to uphold the judgment delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge Gondia. 12. Under the circumstances, Criminal Appeal is allowed. The judgment dated 29-10-2001 delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gondia, in Sessions Trial No.3 of 2000 is hereby quashed and set aside. The bail bond of appellant - accused stands cancelled. He be released, if not required in any other case. Appeal allowed.