Judgment :- (1.) THE accused Sunita Majhi was married to Jiban Majhi. Jiban had extra marital affairs with his sister-in-law (wifes sister) Anjali. On a combined reading of the evidence it appears that Jiban fled away from his house along with Anjali for sometime. They were brought back to the house and thereafter both the sisters started living together. The witnesses consistently stated that there was cordial relationship between two sisters despite extra marital relationship Anjali had with Jiban. Usually Sunita used to stay alone in the house. Jiban was staying along with Anjali in the swallow pump room. On the date of occurrence both sisters stayed together in the house while Jiban stayed in the pump room. In the morning Anjali could not be found in the house. Her dead body was found near a canal which was about twenty bighas away from the house. She was found lying naked with multiple injuries on her body. The police took custody of the dead body. It however, did not appear as to what had happened to the piece of cloth which the police found covering the dead body. It further reveals from the evidence that dead body was first seen by Sunita and Maya, another sister of Sunita,. Maya was however, not examined by the police. The prosecution also did not produce Maya at the time of trial. The father of the victim and the accused Abhay Pada Dolui lodged a written complaint. In the written complaint he suspected his son-in-law Jiban as the offender. Before the trial took place Abhay Pada had died. Hence, he could not be produced at the time of trial. We further find that the inquest report was conspicuously absent in the records of the lower Court. We also do not find any mention of the same in the judgment. (2.) ALTOGETHER fourteen witnesses were examined. Apart from the Doctor and the Police Officer neighbours were examined. They consistently deposed that the sisters did not have any quarrel amongst themselves. They however, corroborated extra marital affairs Jiban had with Anjali. The police arrested the accused on the next date on the basis of her alleged confessional statement before the police. The police also seized blood stained saree, blouse as well as chopper (cuttery) from the concealed place alleged to have been shown by the accused. The seized articles were sent for forensic examination. The police arrested the accused on the next date on the basis of her alleged confessional statement before the police. The police also seized blood stained saree, blouse as well as chopper (cuttery) from the concealed place alleged to have been shown by the accused. The seized articles were sent for forensic examination. We find from the forensic report that although the chopper had mark of human blood, the forensic expert could not come to any definite conclusion upon examination of all the seized articles. We also do not find comparative study if any, of the blood found on the chopper, saree and blouse made with the blood sample of the victim. (3.) THE learned Judge of the Court below held the accused guilty of the offence particularly on the basis of her confessional statement made before the police. Pertinent to note, no statement was made by the accused before the Magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as we find from the record. In absence of the same such extra judicial confession, in our view, is not admissible in evidence in view of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1882. (4.) IN this regard we may refer to two Apex Court decisions reported in 2008 Volume 3 Supreme Court Cases page 210 (Sattatiya @ Satish Rajanna Kartalla v. State of Maharashtra) and 2008 Volume 2 SCC (Cr) page 264 (Aloke Nath Dutta and Ors. v. State of West Bengal). (5.) PARAGRAPH 53 of the Apex Court decision in the case of Aloke Nath Dutta (supra) being relevant herein is quoted below : "53. It is, however, disturbing to note that a confession has not been brought on record in a manner contemplated by law. Law does not envisage taking on record the entire confession by marking it an exhibit incorporating both the admissible and inadmissible part thereof together. We intend to point out that only that part of confession is admissible, which would be leading to the recovery of dead body and/or recovery of articles of Biswanath ; the purported confession proceeded to state even the mode and manner in which Biswanath was allegedly killed. It should not have been done. It may influence the mind of the Court. It should not have been done. It may influence the mind of the Court. " (6.) ON a close reading of the judgment of the Court below impugned herein we find that since there was no eyewitness, the learned Judge drew adverse inference as the accused failed to prove her alibi. Pertinent to mention, the accused told her husband on the next date of the occurrence that the victim was forcibly kidnapped by three/four persons from the house. She was possibly raped and murdered by them. According to the learned Judge, since such statement was not proved and no evidence to support such alibi came in such suspicious circumstance coupled with her confession before the police would conclusively draw an inference that the accused was responsible for the offence. (7.) THE Apex Court already observed in the paragraph quoted (supra) that such purported confessional statement might help the police to seize the articles. The prosecution would only be entitled to use those exhibits in support of the charge. The other part of the statement was however, inadmissible in evidence. (8.) IN this regard we may refer to Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act which provides, "when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a Police Officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved." (9.) WE have discussed the evidence. We do not find any supporting evidence which would support the alleged confessional statement. (10) THE appeal thus succeeds. The accused is acquitted from the charge brought against her. Sureties are discharged. Let lower Court records accompanied by a copy of the judgment be sent down.