JUDGMENT N.P. Gupta, J.- This appeal has been filed by the appellant from jail against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Bhadra District Hanumangarh dated 20.12.2002, convicting the appellant for the offence under Sections 302 and 379 I.P.C. and sentencing to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo 2 months' additional simple imprisonment for the former offence, and sentencing to one year's rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo one month's additional simple imprisonment for the later offence.2. The facts of the case are, that on 29.1.2002 at about 7.00 AM one Hari Singh lodged a written report Ex.P1 alleging interalia, that he had gone to Bhadra yesterday and while returning he alighted at D.R. Hotel and from there he left on foot for Kumharon Ki Dhani, where he stayed for about an hour and took tea and then left for the village. On the way at about 6.00 in the evening when he reached near the field of Bhagu Ram, he found a bundle of firewood lying there and a lady was also lying there. He went near and saw that the lady was wife of his brother Krishna, her garments were smeared with blood, and there was sand in her eyes, mouth and nose, and she was dead. Then he went towards the village, and when he covered some distance, he came across Sukh Ram, Chabila Ram and Mani Ram etc., who were coming from the opposite direction. Then all the persons returned to the place of incident, near corpse, and remained there for the whole night, as there was no other means of conveyance. He alleged that Maina Devi wife of Krishna has been murdered by somebody, who is lying on the spot. On this a case for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. was registered and investigation commenced. Site was inspected on 29.1.2002, inquest report was also prepared on that very day and post mortem examination was got conducted. Inquest report is said to have been prepared at about 10.00 AM on 29.1.2002 in presence of Sukh Ram and Deepa Ram, blood stained earth, sample earth, footwear of the deceased, broken pieces of bangles etc. were taken possession of, and at about 11.00 AM moulds of the footprints were also picked up from the spot. Inquest report is said to have been prepared at about 10.00 AM on 29.1.2002 in presence of Sukh Ram and Deepa Ram, blood stained earth, sample earth, footwear of the deceased, broken pieces of bangles etc. were taken possession of, and at about 11.00 AM moulds of the footprints were also picked up from the spot. Cloths of the deceased were also taken possession of on 29.1.2002. In this sequence, the accused was arrested on 4.2.2002 at 3A0 PM vide Ex.P-62. Then it is alleged, that on 5.2.2002 at about 10.30 AM accused gave information under Section 27, about having concealed the weapon of offence, the knife, in the roof of the Kotha near southern wall, which he has prepared to get recovered. This information is Ex.P-63. Then on that very day at 11.30 AM he said to have given another information, about having concealed the gold ear,rings and gold Koka in the box in his house, which he is ready to get recovered. Then at 5.30 PM he also gave information about his garments, which he was wearing at the time of occurrence, and offered to be ready to get them recovered. Pursuant thereto, vide Ex.P-23 police got recovered the weapon of offence on 6.2.2002 at 10 AM. Then the cloths, which he was wearing at the time of occurrence were got recovered vide Ex.P-24 on 6.2.2002 at 10.30 AM vide Ex.P-5, the earring and gold Koka were recovered on 6.2.2002 at 9.30 AM. Thus after completing the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted in the Court of Addl. Chief Judl. Magistrate, Bhadra, wherefrom the case was committed, and was ultimately transferred to the learned trial Court.3. Learned trial Court framed charges for offence under Sections 302 and 379 Indian Penal Code, which were denied by the accused. During trial, the prosecution examined 16 witnesses, and tendered in evidence some 67 documents, and also produced some material exhibits. The accused in his statement under Section 313 took a stand of denial, and stated, that the witnesses are falsely implicating him. The police statement of witness Devi Lal, Mani Ram and Chabila Ram were tendered in evidence on the side of the defense as Ex.D-1, D-2 and D-3 respectively.4. The learned trial Court after completing the trial found the accused guilty of the two offences convicting him and sentencing him as above.5. The police statement of witness Devi Lal, Mani Ram and Chabila Ram were tendered in evidence on the side of the defense as Ex.D-1, D-2 and D-3 respectively.4. The learned trial Court after completing the trial found the accused guilty of the two offences convicting him and sentencing him as above.5. Arguing the appeal it was submitted by learned Amicus Curiae, that the present is a case resting on circumstantial evidence. According to the prosecution the circumstances relied upon are, (i) extra judicial confession, (ii) recovery of moulds of footprints, which were compared with the moulds of footprints of the accused taken after arrest, (iii) recovery of gold ear-rings and gold Koka pursuant to the information given by the accused, and (iv) recovery of the blood stained weapon of offence pursuant to the information given by the accused, while these circumstances, firstly, according to the learned counsel, are not established, and secondly whatever circumstances may ultimately be found by this Court to have been established, still they do not make out the offences charged against the appellant, on the parameters established by series of judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, with regard to cases resting on circumstantial evidence.6. Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand supported the impugned judgment.7. We have heard learned counsel on either side and have gone through the record closely and carefully.8. First of all, we proceed to examine the circumstance of extra judicial confession, as to whether it is established, by any reliable evidence, which may inspire confidence, that the accused made any extra judicial confession or not. The prosecution in this regard relies upon the evidence of three witnesses, being PW-3 Sukh Ram, PW-6 Mani Ram and PW-7 Deepa Ram. First of all, taking the evidence of Sukh Ram, he is a person who also was going along the road and found the bundle of firewood and the lady lying there injured, but ignoring, by taking her to be some lady of the family of Dhaka or Kadwasra, whose fields are there on that site, however on going a bit ahead some 15-20 persons of the village were coming and, therefore, he also returned, and told that Devi Lal has informed them, that wife of Krishna Dhaka is lying dead. Then they went to the dead body, where they found Hari Singh, who informed that the deceased is wife of his brother Krishna. Then they went to the dead body, where they found Hari Singh, who informed that the deceased is wife of his brother Krishna. According to him they remained with the dead body for the night, and in the morning Hari Singh was sent to lodge report. Then he has proved certain documents. When the police prepared the reports, one golden OM (a golden pendent) in the thread, silver ring, silver Paijeb were found on the deceased, which were taken possession of. Practically this is the whole evidence given by this witness in the examination-in-chief. However, in cross-examination he has deposed, that after 2-3 days Mange Ram came to his house (it is not clear as to what does the witness means by) and told that and on asking he gave out that It is alleged that he came at about 11-12 in the noon. However, in cross-examination, proceeding ahead, witness tells, that after the above disclosure was made by the accused, he went to police station along with Hari Singh and informed about the said confession. It would suffice to say, that a look at the statement of Hari Singh, who has appeared as PW-1 would show, that he does not speak anything in this regard, rather he categorically deposes, that it was on 4.2.2002, when the police arrested the accused Mange Ram, then they learnt that Mange Ram has killed the wife of his brother. We may recount, that the occurrence is of 28.1.2002, the accused came and made confession after 2-3 days, as deposed by PW-3, which come to 30th or 31st, or at best 1st, while the accused is arrested on 4th, and Hari Singh deposes to have learnt about the offender only on 4th. Thus, the story given out by PW-3, obviously does not inspire confidence. Then we come to the evidence of PW-6, on the aspect of extra judicial confession, this witness has deposed, that after 5-6 days of the incident, this witness was sitting in the house of Sukh Ram (PW-3) at about 8 in the morning, at which time Sukh Ram, Deepa Ram and Bhagu Ram were also sitting, and were chit chatting. Then we come to the evidence of PW-6, on the aspect of extra judicial confession, this witness has deposed, that after 5-6 days of the incident, this witness was sitting in the house of Sukh Ram (PW-3) at about 8 in the morning, at which time Sukh Ram, Deepa Ram and Bhagu Ram were also sitting, and were chit chatting. In the meantime, the accused came, and kept standing, thereupon Sukh Ram asked him, as to what is the matter, and how he is standing, then the accused Mange Ram gave out that then Sukh Ram asked, as to what is the mistake committed by him. Then he gave out The witness further deposes, that then Sukh Ram asked him to accompany to police station, to which he denied, and ran away. This witness further deposes, that they did not disclose this thing to anybody in the village, rather straightway went to police station, and informed them. In cross-examination, he has deposed that when they went to see the dead body accused was not with them, he does not know as to whether at that time Mange Ram was in the village or not, or till when was he there in the village. Then he has deposed that they were sitting on the Chabutari outside the room in the house of Mange Ram, Mange Ram came from the western lane all alone. He was not called by Sukh Ram, they did not ask anything, only Sukh Ram asked, and the accused answered. Then he has deposed that Mange Ram came in the morning at 8 AM, and the dialogue took place between the 3-4 persons. He has also deposed that they did not chase the accused, rather they went to Hari Singh, who was available at his house, at that time, other villagers were also sitting there, and the brothers of Hari Singh were there, and there from they went to bus stand, and went to Bhadra, on their own and gave the statements in the police. He has also deposed that Sukh Ram's house is at a distance of 700-800 meters from the house of Mange Ram. He has also admitted that they had informed the SHO, that they have not told anybody in the village about the confession. He has also deposed that Sukh Ram's house is at a distance of 700-800 meters from the house of Mange Ram. He has also admitted that they had informed the SHO, that they have not told anybody in the village about the confession. It may be observed here, firstly that the evidence of PW-3 and PW-6 is at a material variance, inasmuch as, as noticed above, according to PW-3 the accused had come to make extra judicial confession after 2-3 days of the incident, while according to this witness PW-6 he came after 5-6 days which would come to 1st or 2nd of February. Thus, the two witnesses contradict each-other. Then secondly in the examination in chief, he has stated that they straightway went to the police station, and narrated it there while in cross-examination he has deposed, that after Mange Ram ran away, they went to the house of Hari Singh, and told him, and then went to bus stand, and went to Bhadra, and narrated to the SHO on their own. To repeat Hari Singh PW-1 does not support this theory, as he has deposed to have come to know of the fact of the accused being the offender only for the first time when he was arrested.9. Then we come to the evidence of PW-7 in regard to extra judicial confession. This witness deposes that after 5-6 days of the incident at 8 in the morning he along with Sukh Ram, Bhagu Ram and Mani Ram were sitting in the house of Sukh Ram. There Mange Ram came and kept standing. Then Sukh Ram asked as to why he is standing, then Mange Ram told -43 tr then Sukh Ram asked as to what is the mistake. Then Mange Ram said Then Sukh Ram told, that they get him arrested by the police, whereupon the accused gave out to be not ready to go to police, and he ran away. He further states that this was not disclosed by this witness to anybody. In cross-examination he has deposed that in between his house and house of Sukh Ram there are 3-4 house, while there are other 4-5 houses in between the house of Sukh Ram and Bhagu Rm. Mange Ram said to have come all alone from the western side, Sukh Ram's house is at a distance of 3 Murabbas from the house of Mange Ram. Mange Ram said to have come all alone from the western side, Sukh Ram's house is at a distance of 3 Murabbas from the house of Mange Ram. He has also deposed that Mange Ram was not called by Sukh Ram, and that he did not talk anything to Mange Ram, nor did they chase him, nor raised any hue and cry, and that thereafter, he came to his own house, and Bhagu Ram and Mani Ram went away to their respective houses. Mani Ram is PW-6 and Bhagu Ram has not been examined by the prosecution. Thus, this witness contradicts the story projected by Mani Ram PW,6, about all of them having gone to the house of Hari Singh, having met him, then to have gone to police station, and to have disclosed it to the SHO. Secondly, if the words said to have been uttered by the accused, constituting extra judicial confession, as deposed by the three witnesses are read together, there are material contradictions, and in sequence PWs-3, 6 and 7, everyone has tried to improve, making an effort to make the extra judicial confession stronger and stronger, which, rather, is circumstance casting doubt on the reliability of the theory of the accused having made any extra judicial confession.10. Apart from this, it is also required to be comprehended, that all these witnesses, victim and her in-law members are resident of the same village, and if any extra judicial confession would have been made, the most natural instinct would have been, to report it to the police, and to have him arrested, while significantly Hari Singh as noticed above, deposed, that he came to know that the accused is an offender for the first time when he was arrested. Then we may also refer to the statement of SHO PW-16 Hemchand, and in his entire statement he has nowhere even whispered, that any of the witnesses ever told him about the accused ever having made any extra judicial confession, or that he having even arrested the accused by getting inspired from any extra judicial confession. Thus, in our view, the story of extra judicial confession, as propounded by the prosecution, does not at all inspire any confidence whatever.11. So far as the evidence of footprints is concerned, firstly inherently it is a very week type of evidence. Thus, in our view, the story of extra judicial confession, as propounded by the prosecution, does not at all inspire any confidence whatever.11. So far as the evidence of footprints is concerned, firstly inherently it is a very week type of evidence. Secondly the moulds of the footprints are said to have been taken from the site on 29.1.2002 itself, and as the things are emerging from prosecution evidence, that in the night itself good number of villagers were there, who stayed with the dead body for the whole night, obviously many of the witnesses claimed to have seen the dead body from near, and noticed the injuries, and the factum of death, so also other things. In such circumstances, it is but natural to infer, that there were enumerable footprints, and as appears from the statement of PW-1, that till arrest, it was not clear to anyone as to who is the offender, and in any case even if we were to assume, as deposed by PWs-3, 6 and 7 that he made any extra judicial confession, still till then nobody was even apprehensive, about this accused being the offender. In such circumstances, there was no earthly reason to lift. the moulds of particular footprints on 29.1.2002. Thus, in our opinion, this circumstance also does not satisfactorily connect the accused with the crime.12. So far as recovery of the weapon of offence is concerned, a look at the recovery memo Ex.P-23 shows, that the knife was taken into possession, then wrapped in cotton and was tied with thread. It is of course mentioned thereafter, that it was put in a cotton bag and was sealed. However, a look at the statement of PW-8, the motbir Chabila Ram, shows that in his cross-examination he has deposed, that the knife was simply rapped in cotton and was put in a bag, and was taken away, and that he did not go to the police station. The other motbir Mahesh Kumar has not been examined. However, a look at the statement of PW-8, the motbir Chabila Ram, shows that in his cross-examination he has deposed, that the knife was simply rapped in cotton and was put in a bag, and was taken away, and that he did not go to the police station. The other motbir Mahesh Kumar has not been examined. Then a look at the statement of I.O. PW-16 Hemchand shows, that at page 3 he has deposed, that memo of recovery of knife by the accused is Ex.P-23, which bears his signatures C to D, signatures of accused Mange Ram E to F, and specimen seal at point-X. As against this, a look at Ex.P-23 shows, that no specimen seal is affixed thereon, nor there is any point-X marked on this document. In our view, it is not satisfactorily established, that the knife was sealed at the time of its seizure. Then neither the motbir PW-8, nor the I.O. PW-16 have identified the knife, to be the particular article, to have been recovered vide Ex.P-23. Thus, it is not established that the very weapon of offence was got recovered, pursuant to the information given by the accused. Thus, this circumstance is also not established against the accused.13. Then the last circumstance remains is that of the recovery of the gold Koka and gold ear-rings. In this regard, it would suffice to say, that the body was lying in the field on the road side, and recovery is said to have been effected on 6.2.2002. The husband of the deceased Krishna Kumar, being PW-2, has deposed that when he saw the dead body closely, he found that ear-rings and the Koka were missing, rest all other ornaments were there on the person. Thus, it cannot be said that robbery was the object behind the murder, and there is nothing to show, that the accused could not have come to possession of these articles otherwise then by committing murder. Therefore, merely from the recovery of ornaments, on the parameters of Section 114(a) of the Evidence Act, no inference of murder can be drawn against the appellant. We may refer to a classic judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanwat Khan v. State, reported in AIR 1956 SC 54 . 14. Therefore, merely from the recovery of ornaments, on the parameters of Section 114(a) of the Evidence Act, no inference of murder can be drawn against the appellant. We may refer to a classic judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanwat Khan v. State, reported in AIR 1956 SC 54 . 14. At this place, we may also refer, rather recapitulate the established legal principle, that in cases where the prosecution seeks to rest its case on circumstantial evidence, the case is to be judged on the following parameters being:- (i) that each circumstance relied upon by the prosecution should indicate towards the guilt of the accused, (ii) each circumstance should be established by reliable and cogent evidence by the prosecution, (iii) all such circumstances, so established should form a complete chain (a) establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and conjunctively, (b) negativing the innocence of the accused on all reasonable hypothesis.15. Thus, considering the case on the above parameters, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to establish the accused to have committed the offence of murder. The appellant is, therefore, entitled to be acquitted of the charge of Section 302 Indian Penal Code.16. So far as the conviction under Section 379 is concerned, in our view, the prosecution has satisfactorily established, that the two articles recovered from the accused, on his information, did belong to the deceased. Krishna Kumar, the husband has proved it, then the father of the deceased PW-9 Badri Ram has also proved it, that he got these articles prepared, and had given to his daughter, the deceased, the articles have been identified in the Court, and even in the statement under Section 313, the accused does not claim the articles to be belonging to him. In such circumstances, in our view, the learned trial Court was justified in finding the accused guilty for the offence under Section 379 Indian Penal Code17. Resultantly, the appeal is partly allowed. The appellant is acquitted of the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. However, his conviction and sentences for the offence under Section 379 I.P.C. are maintained. Since the accused is said to be in custody since the time of arrest, it is clear that he has already served out the sentences awarded, for the offence under Section 379 I.P.C., therefore, he be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. Appeal partly allowed. Since the accused is said to be in custody since the time of arrest, it is clear that he has already served out the sentences awarded, for the offence under Section 379 I.P.C., therefore, he be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. Appeal partly allowed. *******