JUDGMENT (1) All the three appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 2-9-1999 passed by Sri Ram Prabodh Singh, 1st Additional sessions Judge, Singhbhum (West) at chaibasa in S. T. No. 171 of 1995 whereby and whereunder all the appellants have been convicted under Sections 302/34, 201, I. P. C. and appellant Nos. 1 and 3 have further been convicted under Section 376, I. P. C. and all the three appellants have been sentenced to undergo R. I. for life under Section 302,i. P. C. and R. I. for five years under Section 201, IPC. The appellant Nos. 1 and 3 have further been sentenced to undergo R. I. for 10 years under section 376, I. P. C. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. (2) The prosecution story in brief is that the deceased Dikri Kandiburu aged about 18 years was marriageable and the appellant gangu Barjo was trying to lure her in marriage. According to P. W. 1, the informant ram Kandaiburu, on 4-1-1995 she has gone to village Hat situated at about 500 yards from the village. He found her sister was talking with the appellants in the Hat. After sometime at about 8. p. m. when he went out he again saw the deceased was being courted by these appellants and trying to take her to their house. The informant keeping in view that as per customs prevailing in their society his sister was being persuaded by these appellants for marriage. He returned to his house but his sister did not return till next day. Then he started asking for his sister from the appellants who informed him that she has gone for relative's house. The informant tried to search the deceased at his relatives place but failed to locate her for next one week. Then he got suspicious and informed the village Munda. P. W. 2 regarding disappearance of his sister. The appellant Gangu Barjo was caught by P. W. 1 and chowkidar sudharshan and enquired in presence of villagers regarding the deceased. The appellant gangu Barjo as per prosecution case confessed before the villagers that the deceased was raped by other co-appellants and then killed. He further discloses to the villagers that the dead body of the deceased was concealed in the river beneath the water after getting the dead body tied with heavy stone. The appellant gangu Barjo as per prosecution case confessed before the villagers that the deceased was raped by other co-appellants and then killed. He further discloses to the villagers that the dead body of the deceased was concealed in the river beneath the water after getting the dead body tied with heavy stone. Accordingly the dead body was recovered in presence of the villagers and police. The Goikera police recorded the statement of the informant at 9. a. m. on 15-1-1995 and registered Goilkera P. S. Case No. 3 of 1995 under sections 302, 376, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code against all the appellants to submit charge sheet against all appellants. The case was committed to the court of Sessions where they were charged jointly under sections 302/201/34 of the indian Penal Code. The Appellant Nos. 1 and 3 were further charged under Section 376, i. P. C. also. The appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. However, the learned trial Court having believed the prosecution version found and held all of them guilty under Sections 302/201/34 of the Indian penal Code and Appellant Nos. 1 and 3 under section 376, I. P. C. separately. Accordingly, all the three appellants were sentenced to serve rigorous imprisonment for life under section 302, I. P. C., R. I. for 5 years under section 201, I. P. C. and appellant Nos. 1 and 3 have also been sentenced to serve r. I. for 10 years under Section 376, I. P. C. (3) The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants the grounds that prosecution version suffers for lack of any credible evidence on record. It is also asserted that the appellants have been involved falsely in this case. According to learned counsel for the appellants, the whole prosecution case suffers from improbability as no eye witnesses of the occurrence nor any positive evidence has come on record that the dead body was recovered on confessional statement of appellant No. 2 Gangu Barjo. The learned counsel for the appellants further pointed out that delay in lodging FIR for nearly 10 days has not been explained and the witnesses before whom the said confessional statement has been made had not been produced by the prosecution. The learned counsel for the appellants further pointed out that I. O. of the case has not been examined causing prejudice to the defence. The learned counsel for the appellants further pointed out that I. O. of the case has not been examined causing prejudice to the defence. Accordingly, the appellants deserve to be acquitted of the charges (4) The prosecution has examined altogether six witnesses in support of the case. P. W. 3 Shivlan Munda has been tendered. P. W. 4 Jawahar Pandey has formally proved the fard beyan etc. recorded by the I. O. of the case. P. W. 5 Dr. D. N. Jha conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body. According to him the death has occurred because of injuries caused by hard and blunt substance on the chest resulting in fracture of 2nd to 5th ribs on right side of the chest. P. W. 6 Agnesh Kandaiburu is another hear say witness of the occurrence from the informant. The Court has examined dr. S. S. Birua who has conducted forensic examination of the viginal swab of the deceased. According to him he could not find any spermatozoa etc. in the swab. The dead body having remained in water for more than ten days, no such spermatozoa could be detected. As such the F. S. L. report is not supporting either the prosecution or the defence version. P. W. 1 the informant has supported his earlier statement made before the police. He has further stated that when he saw the appellants talking and joking with the deceased he could not suspect that this incident may happen. He admitted in cross-examination that appellant Jhupo used to talk with his sister and it was customary that the boy should seek consent of the girl before marriage. Accordingly, he did not object when he saw his sister along with the appellant at about 8 p. m. near the river. According to him on 14-1-1995 when Ganju was being questioned by P. W. 2 in presence of village Chowkidar and P. W. 3 during which villagers and his father were present. P. W. 2 the village Munda supported to this extent that in his presence the appellants have confessed their guilt. He has signed over the inquest report and seizure list etc. P. W. 6 is a hear say witness of the information he received from the informant. P. W. 2 the village Munda supported to this extent that in his presence the appellants have confessed their guilt. He has signed over the inquest report and seizure list etc. P. W. 6 is a hear say witness of the information he received from the informant. (5) Thus from the facts as discussed above the conviction of the appellants depend upon the circumstantial evidence when they were last seen with the deceased by P. W. 1. The appellants are being connected with the commission of the crime on the basis of their confessional statements and further that the dead body was recovered on disclosure made by appellant-Gangu Barja in presence of the villagers. Undisputedly the dead body was recovered after ten days, concealed in the river bed tied with stones. The confessional statement of the Gangu Barjo as well as others is extra-judicial which deserves to be scrutinized carefully. P. W. 2 is the only witness of the village who asserted in his examination in chief that the appellant Gangu barjo has confessed before him regarding commission of murder by other appellants. However, it is apparent from the records that the village Chowkidar Shudarshan and P. W. 3 Shivlan Munda were present but both of them did not come to support this fact before the trial Court. The settled law is that confessional statement of a co-accused could not be used against other co-accused. (6) Thus the prosecution remains dependent upon the sole testimony of P. W. 1 and p. W. 2, Munda of village. P. W. 1 admitted in cross-examination that appellant Bharang kandulna was married in his village and he was related with him. According to him he saw his sister for the first time at about 5 p. m. with appellants. He further admitted that appellant Jhupa and his sister used to meet without any objection from their family who were courting each other for last two-three months. This witness further admitted that when the appellants were being questioned, villagers as well as his father were present. However none of them have been examined in support of this fact. The prosecution story therefore depends upon the testimony of P. W. 1 and 2. The appellants during their examination under Section 313, cr. P. C. have denied all the facts claiming ignorance. The I. O. of the case has not been examined. However none of them have been examined in support of this fact. The prosecution story therefore depends upon the testimony of P. W. 1 and 2. The appellants during their examination under Section 313, cr. P. C. have denied all the facts claiming ignorance. The I. O. of the case has not been examined. P. W. 4 formally proved the hand writing and signature of the I. O., fard beyan and charge sheet, inquest report, seizure list etc. The learned trial Court vide para 14 of the judgment has relied upon the statement of P. W. 1 and 2 that appellant Gangu Barjo has disclosed before them where the dead body was concealed. The said extra-judicial confession has been accepted by the trial court. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case as well as admission of p. W. 1 and 2 it is apparent that the appellant gangu Barjo was in custody of the village chowkidar when such discloser was made. Such confessional statements leading to recovery of the dead body cannot be held voluntary rather under duress and threats. In such view of the facts, we find that the learned trial Court has committed serious mistake in accepting such discloser as voluntary extra-judicial confession. (7) Having considered the above discussed facts and circumstances; we find and hold that the prosecution in the present case has not been able to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts. (8) In the result, we find and hold that the present appeal has got merit and deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court against the appellants under Sections 302, 201 and 376/34, i. P. C. is hereby set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the charge levelled against them. Since the appellants are in jail custody, they are directed to be set free forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.