JUDGMENT Hon’ble R.K. Rastogi, J.—This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 20.5.1999 passed by Sri K.P. Singh then learned VIIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Pilibhit in Sessions Trial No. 422 of 1997 convicting the appellant under Section 302, IPC and sentencing him to life imprisonment, and to a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. 2. The facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 16.6.97 at about 7.45 a.m. one Navi Ahmad lodged a FIR at Police Station Gajraula, District Pilibhit in which it was stated that he had taken the farm of Sri Shailendra Singh, Advocate at village Devipura on theka and he resided there along with his family. There was the farm of Dharmveer Bhasin towards east of this farm and on that farm Mohd. Sadik had started to reside as a Chaukidar about ten days ago. On 16.6.97 at about 5 a.m., on hearing the cries of Mohd. Sadik, he and his wife Noor Bano reached that farm. There Mohd. Sadik told him that his children and mother were not traceable. Then Navi Ahmad tried to search them and noticed that dead bodies of two children of Mohd. Sadik named Kasim and Pinki were lying in water which had collected in the pond of the tube-well and the dead body of his mother Niyazan was lying behind his house. Then he went to the police station and lodged this report. 3. On the basis of the above report, the police registered a case under Section 302, IPC against unknown culprits and investigated the same. The inquest reports of the dead bodies were prepared and those dead bodies were sent for post-mortem. According to the post-mortem report of Smt. Niyazan, she had only one ante-mortem injury upon her body which was an abrasion 2 c.m. x 1 c.m. on right side of the chin. The cause of her death could not be ascertained and so her viscera was preserved. According to the post-mortem report of Km. Pinki who was aged about eight years, she had no ante mortem injuries on her body, and the cause of death, in the opinion of the doctor, was asphyxia due to drowning. According to the post-mortem report of Mohd. Kasim who was aged about nine and half years, he also had no ante mortem injuries on his body, and the cause of death was asphyxia due to drowning. According to the post-mortem report of Mohd. Kasim who was aged about nine and half years, he also had no ante mortem injuries on his body, and the cause of death was asphyxia due to drowning. It may be mentioned that all these post-mortems were ‘performed on 16.6.1997 at 5 p.m., 6 p.m. and 5.30 p.m. respectively and their death had taken place about half day before the time of post-mortem. According to the viscera report, aluminium phosphate methyl alcohol (poison) was found in the viscera of the deceased Smt. Niyazan. During investigation the name of the accused Mohd. Sadik who was son of the deceased Niyazan and father of the deceased Pinki and Mohd. Kasim came into light, and the police after completion of the investigation submitted a charge-sheet against him under Section 302, IPC, and the case was committed to the Courts of Sessions. The accused was charged under Section 302, IPC. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. The prosecution produced Sri Navi Ahmad as P.W. 1. He is the informant of the case. He has proved the FIR lodged by him as Ext. Ka. 1. He has further stated that the accused Mohd. Sadik was his cousin brother-in-law (fufera sala) and he had got Mohd. Sadik employed at the farm of Sri Dharmveer on salary of Rs. 800/- per month. Thereafter, Mohd. Sadik had started to reside at that farm along with his mother and children. He has further stated that Mohd. Sadik was a poor person. His first wife had died and he had contracted the second marriage thereafter, but his second wife did not like the children born out of his wedlock with the first wife. He has further stated that Smt. Niyazan had told him that before employment in the farm of Dharmveer, Mohd. Sadik was employed in a sugar factory, and he had to incur a heavy amount in the treatment of his first wife, who ultimately died, and Mohd. Sadik also lost his service in that factory. However, he had received a sum of rupees 1,15,000/- from the factory. Out of this amount he had purchased some lottery tickets and a piece of land at village Chiraiyadeh. She had further told him that the second wife of Mohd. Sadik named Munni was pressurising Mohd. Sadik to leave his children who were born out of his wedlock with the first wife. Out of this amount he had purchased some lottery tickets and a piece of land at village Chiraiyadeh. She had further told him that the second wife of Mohd. Sadik named Munni was pressurising Mohd. Sadik to leave his children who were born out of his wedlock with the first wife. She used to say to Sadik that since she had left her children and had not brought them with her after her marriage with Sadik, Sadik should also leave his children. She further stated that it would not be possible to maintain all the children. Navi Ahmad has further stated that Smt. Niyazan told him that Sadik was not satisfied with his job as Chaukidar and so he used to pull rickshaw in day time, and did the job of Chaukidar in night. He has stated that he had definite suspicion in his mind that Mohd. Sadik had killed his mother and both the children. During cross-examination, he stated that he did not see the accused committing murder of his children and mother, and that no quarrel of Sadik had ever taken place with his mother and children in his presence at any time. He further stated that the mother of Sadik and his children never made any complaint of Sadik with him, that Sadik had one more son Hasim aged about 16 years, that the second wife of Sadik was not residing with him and she had left him. He further stated that he never saw the second wife of Sadik asking him to leave his mother and children. After cross-examination by the accused, this witness was declared hostile by the prosecution, and then he denied that statement which he had allegedly given to the Investigation Officer an 6.7.98. He further stated that the statement given by him in the Court is correct and the Investigating Officer has recorded his false statement which he had never given to the Investigating Officer. He further stated that the second wife of the accused had gone away from the farm of Dharmveer about ten to twelve days prior to the incident and thereafter she had not come back. 5. Smt. Noor Bano wife of Navi Ahmad P.W. 1 was examined as P.W. 2. She had accompanied Navi Ahmad when he had gone to the farm of Dharmveer on hearing cries of the accused Mohd. 5. Smt. Noor Bano wife of Navi Ahmad P.W. 1 was examined as P.W. 2. She had accompanied Navi Ahmad when he had gone to the farm of Dharmveer on hearing cries of the accused Mohd. Sadik and she has corroborated the statement of Navi Ahmad. She has stated that the second wife of Mohd. Sadik tortured his children, and Niyazan used to tell her that Munni was pressurising Sadik to leave his children from the first wife, and Sadik also used to say that he would leave children and reside with Munni. 6. During cross-examination she stated that she did not see Sadik committing murder of Niyazan, Pinki and Mohd. Kasim, though she has stated in her examination-in-chief that she had a firm belief that Sadik had murdered his mother and both the children. She further stated in her cross-examination that she had no suspicion upon Sadik in respect of commission of this offence. She was also declared hostile by the prosecution. She denied her statement recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. and stated that whatever she had stated before the Court is true. 7. Dr. A.K. Sharma was examined as P.W. 3. He had performed post-mortems of the dead bodies of Smt. Niyazan, Pinki and Kasim. He has proved their post-mortem reports which are Ext. Ka 3, Ka 4 and Ka 5. He has further stated that the death of these three deceased persons could have taken place in between the night of 15/16.6.97 between 11 p.m. to 4 a.m. 8. Sri Jai Prakash, SSI was examined as P.W. 4. He has stated that on the date of the incident, he was posted as SHO at Police Station Gajraula. He investigated the case, and prepared inquest reports of the dead bodies. Thereafter, he sent them to the mortuary for post-mortem. He has proved the inquest reports as Ext. Ka 6, Ext. Ka 7 and Ext. Ka 8 and the photos of the dead bodies, their challans and letters to the R.I. for their post-mortem. He has also proved the specimen seal used for sealing the dead bodies and the letters sent to the CMO. These documents are Exts. Ka 9 to Ka 23. He also prepared the site plan of the place of incident Ext. Ka 24. He further stated that the name of the accused Mohd. He has also proved the specimen seal used for sealing the dead bodies and the letters sent to the CMO. These documents are Exts. Ka 9 to Ka 23. He also prepared the site plan of the place of incident Ext. Ka 24. He further stated that the name of the accused Mohd. Sadik came into light in the statements of Noor Bano and her relations, and the village Pradhan Badarul Hasan and Rejabaksh, and then he searched Mohd. Sadik. Mohd. Sadik was arrested on 22.6.97 at about 5.05 p.m. He further stated that thereafter he made inquiries from the accused, and then the accused confessed his guilt. He stated that his eldest son had developed ill habits from his young age and he was doing pick-pocketing etc. and he was apprehended on the spot several times and so persons used to come to his house having complaints against that son, and he had to pay money to them. His first wife had died due to disease of tuberculosis. Thereafter, he remarried Munni Begum, whose divorce had taken place with her first husband Ishak Mohammad resident of Sitarganj. She had five children with Ishak but she had left her children with her husband. Munni Begum pressurised Sadik to reside with her at Sitarganj because her children were also residing there. Though he was not agreeable to this proposal, yet he went Sitarganj along with his children and mother, but Munni Begum was not ready to keep his mother and children with her. She was a lady of loose character and on noticing this fact, he returned back to his village. She had quarrel with him before the date of the incident and then she had gone to Sitarganj stating that unless and until he leaves his mother and children, she would not reside with him. Then he took a decision to kill his mother and children and he drowned his both children in the pond of the tube-well and provided poison to his mother in water melon and then she died. Then he left her dead body behind his house. He further stated that after completion of the investigation, he submitted a charge-sheet against the accused which is Ext. Ka 25. He also proved the Chik FIR prepared by Head Moharir Vishnu Gopal Upadhyay Ex. Ka 26 and its entry in the G.D. Ext. Ka 27. 9. Then he left her dead body behind his house. He further stated that after completion of the investigation, he submitted a charge-sheet against the accused which is Ext. Ka 25. He also proved the Chik FIR prepared by Head Moharir Vishnu Gopal Upadhyay Ex. Ka 26 and its entry in the G.D. Ext. Ka 27. 9. Sri Rejabakhs was examined as P.W. 5. He is brother-in-law (Bahanoi) of the accused. He stated that Mohd. Sadik had five children from his first wife. Out of them, one had died and the remaining children were residing with him. He further stated that after death of his first wife Mohd. Sadik remarried Smt. Munni Begum. He has expressed his ignorance about the allegation that the second wife of Sadik asked Sadik to leave his mother and children. He was declared hostile by the prosecution. He denied to have given any statement to the Investigating Officer against Mohd. Sadik and he stated that he does not know as to how his statement was written by the Investigating Officer. 10. Sri Abrar Husain was examined as P.W. 6. He is also brother-in-law (Bahanoi) of the accused. He too stated that after death of his first wife, Mohd. Sadik had remarried Munni Begum, but he denied this allegation that Munni Begum asked him to leave his mother and children. He was also declared hostile by the prosecution. He denied to have given any statement to the Investigating Officer. 11. Sri Dharmveer Bhasin, Advocate was examined as P.W. 7. He has stated that he and Shailendra Singh, Advocate have got their agricultural farms at village Devipura which are adjacent to each other. He further stated that about one year and eleven months ago, the wife of Navi Ahmad came to him and told him that the mother and children of Sadik had been murdered. He further stated that he had employed Sadik as Chaukidar at his farm about twelve days ago, and on receiving the above news, he called Sri Shailendra Singh, Advocate who is his neighbour and then he and Shailendra Singh both went to that farm. He further stated that the wife of Navi Ahmad had told him that she had sent her husband to the police station to lodge a report of the incident, and on reaching the farm, he met the accused Mohd. He further stated that the wife of Navi Ahmad had told him that she had sent her husband to the police station to lodge a report of the incident, and on reaching the farm, he met the accused Mohd. Sadik who told him that someone had committed murder of his mother and both children in the night by strangulating them, and had thrown the dead bodies of Pinky and Kasim in the pond of tube-well and had thrown the dead body of his mother behind the farm house. Sri Dharmveer Bhasin, Advocate has further stated that then he saw all the dead bodies and on seeing the condition of the dead body of Niyazan which was lying in the flat condition without any bent, he reached the conclusion that Sadik was telling lies because if the dead body had been thrown, it would have been bent at several places, so he said to Sadik that he was telling a lie. Then Sadik said to him that he had committed a mistake and since his second wife was not agreeable to reside with his children and mother, he had committed murder of his mother by providing poison to her in water melon, and had murdered both the children by throwing them in the water pond. Sri Dharmveer Bhasin has further stated that then he said to the accused that he would not render any help to him (accused) who shall get punishment for his misdeeds. He further stated that Shailendra Singh, Advocate was also present at that time, and thereafter he returned back to his house and gave information of this entire incident to the S.P. on phone. During cross-examination, he denied the allegation that the accused had not confessed his guilt before him, and that he had falsely implicated the accused. 12. The statement of Shailendra Singh, Advocate was recorded as P.W. 8. He has stated that he had accompanied Sri Dharmveer Bhasin (P.W. 7) to the place of the incident. He has corroborated the statement of Sri Dharmveer Bhasin. The viscera report has been tendered by the prosecution in evidence which has been marked as Ext. Ka 2. 13. This is the entire prosecution evidence. The accused in his statement admitted that he was residing at the farm of Sri Dharmveer Bhasin alongwith his mother and children. He has corroborated the statement of Sri Dharmveer Bhasin. The viscera report has been tendered by the prosecution in evidence which has been marked as Ext. Ka 2. 13. This is the entire prosecution evidence. The accused in his statement admitted that he was residing at the farm of Sri Dharmveer Bhasin alongwith his mother and children. He denied the allegation that he had provided poison to his mother in water melon and that he had murdered his both the children by throwing them in the water pond. He has further stated that Sri Dharmveer, Advocate and Sri Shailendra Singh, Advocate asked him to do begari in their house at day time and he had refused to do so, and asked for settlement of his account, and then they felt aggrieved and falsely implicated him in this case. No defence evidence was produced by the accused. 14. Learned Additional Sessions Judge after hearing of the case, came to the conclusion that the charge under Section 302, IPC was sufficiently proved against the accused. He, therefore, convicted him under Section 302, IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment and to a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. Aggrieved with that order, the accused filed this appeal. 15. Though the appeal was filed through Counsel, no advocate appeared to argue this appeal on behalf of the appellant. Hence, Dr. Abida Syeed was appointed as Amicus Curiae to argue the appeal on his behalf vide order dated 8.9.08. The appellant Mohd. Sadik was present in the Court at that time having been brought from jail. Thereafter, arguments of the learned Amicus Curiae as well as learned AGA were heard by us and now we proceed to decide this appeal on merits. 16. It is to be seen that this is a case of circumstantial evidence only. There is no direct evidence to this effect that the accused-appellant committed murder of his mother and children. P.W. 1 Navi Ahmad and his wife P.W. 2 have stated that they had suspicion that the accused had committed murder of his mother and the children, because his second wife was pressurising him to leave them and had stated that she would reside with him only when he leaves his mother and the children from the first wife. P.W. 1 Navi Ahmad and his wife P.W. 2 have stated that they had suspicion that the accused had committed murder of his mother and the children, because his second wife was pressurising him to leave them and had stated that she would reside with him only when he leaves his mother and the children from the first wife. It is to be seen that there is no ocular testimony in support of the allegation of murder and the accused cannot be convicted on the basis of suspicion only. The only evidence in support of the charge under Section 302, IPC against the accused is his so-called confession before the Investigating Officer on the date of his arrest as well as the so-called extra-judicial confession before Sri Dharmveer Bhasin, Advocate P.W. 7 and Sri Shailendra Singh, Advocate P.W. 8. Now it is to be seen that so far as the so-called confessional statement of the accused before the Investigating Officer is concerned, this so-called confessional statement has not led to any discovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, and so his mere confessional statement without any discovery is hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act and is inadmissible and so no reliance can be placed upon that so-called confessional statement before the police. 17. Now we come to the so-called extra-judicial confession made by the accused before the witnesses Dharmveer Singh P.W. 7 and Shailendar Singh P.W. 8. In fact the so-called extra judicial confession of the accused before these two witnesses is the only piece of evidence upon which the conviction of the accused has been recorded. Learned counsel for the accused appellants submitted that the extra-judicial confession is a very weak type of evidence and it cannot be relied upon unless it is corroborated by some other reliable evidence. In this connection she cited before us a ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prem Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1997 SC 221 . In this case the accused had been convicted on the basis of extra-judicial confession and that conviction was confirmed by the High Court. In this connection she cited before us a ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prem Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1997 SC 221 . In this case the accused had been convicted on the basis of extra-judicial confession and that conviction was confirmed by the High Court. In the appeal filed by the convict against the above judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court discussing the evidence of extra-judicial confession made the following observations in para 16 of the judgment : "Coming to the next circumstance, namely, the extra-judicial confession alleged to have been made by the appellants to Bharpur Singh, the prosecution had not chosen to examine him as a witness at the trial. One Bagicha Singh (PW-7) was examined who in his evidence has stated that on 10th November, 1985 at about 11.00 a.m., he had gone to the house of Bharpur Singh for some work and at that time both the appellants had come to his house; they were nervous and when he (Bharpur Singh) inquired from them the reason, Amarjit Singh (A-1) told that they had committed the murder of Surinder Kaur on October 27, 1985. During the cross-examination, several material omissions were brought on record. He had not stated before the police that he was on visiting terms with Bharpur Singh or A-1 and A-2. The evidence of this witness is full of material omissions. If this witness was not close to the appellants it is extremely doubtful whether they would confess the guilt in his presence. The Courts below have overlooked this aspect and erroneously held that the prosecution has proved the extra-judicial confession alleged to have been made by the appellants. In our considered view, it is not safe to accept this evidence in the absence of corroboration." 18. Dr. Abida Syeed also cited before us another ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kavita v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1998 SC 2473 . This was a case where the allegations were that the accused mother had thrown her children into a well and thereafter she had also jumped into the well to commit suicide. She was rescued but her children died and so she was charged under Section 302 and 309, IPC. Her defence was that her children and she herself accidentally fell down into the well. She was rescued but her children died and so she was charged under Section 302 and 309, IPC. Her defence was that her children and she herself accidentally fell down into the well. The prosecution had relied upon her extra-judicial confession alleged to have been made before the witnesses when she was taken out of the well that she had thrown her children in the well, and then she had jumped in the well to commit suicide. Referring to this extra-judicial confession in this case it was observed that there was no reliable evidence to corroborate the so-called extra-judicial confession made by the accused and so it was held to be unreliable by the Hon’ble Apex Court. The appeal was allowed, and the accused was acquitted. 19. Learned Amicus Curiae further cited before us another ruling of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1999 SC 3227 . Referring to the extra-judicial confession allegedly made in this case, their Lordships made the following observations in para 3 of the Judgment : "The only evidence against the appellant was an extra-judicial confession stated to have been made by the appellant before the Sarpanch of the village, the dying declaration of Sukhwinder Kaur recorded by the Police on 10-12-1990 and the dying declaration recorded by the Judicial Magistrate on 11-12-1990. Both the trial Court and the High Court relied upon the two dying declarations and also the extra-judicial confession for the purpose of convicting the accused. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Courts below have committed a grave error in relying upon the extra-judicial confession as it was highly improbable that in absence of any relationship with the Sarpanch or for any other good reason, the appellant would have gone to the Sarpanch and confessed that he had purchased the poisonous tablets which led to the death of Sukhwinder Kaur. If what the Sarpanch has deposed was really true, the Investigating Officer would have then tried to find out from whose shop the tablets were purchased. No such attempt was made. The evidence of Sarpanch is not such as could have been accepted without any independent corroboration. Even the trial Court and the High Court have not considered that said extra-judicial confession as sufficient to prove the guilt of the appellant. No such attempt was made. The evidence of Sarpanch is not such as could have been accepted without any independent corroboration. Even the trial Court and the High Court have not considered that said extra-judicial confession as sufficient to prove the guilt of the appellant. It has been regarded as a piece of evidence furnishing independent corroboration to the dying declaration. An extra-judicial confession even if believed is considered a very weak piece of evidence and ordinarily is not accepted without independent corroboration. In this case, it was of doubtful character and, therefore, it was wrong to rely upon it and hold that it afforded good corroboration to the dying declaration." 20. Let us now evaluate the extra-judicial confession allegedly made by the accused before the witnesses Dharmveer Singh Bhasin P.W. 7 and Shailendra Singh P.W. 8. It is to be seen that they are not relatives of the accused and it is not clear as to how the accused had any confidence in them to admit his guilt before them, and so it was improbable for the accused to have confessed his guilt before them as observed in the above rulings. In this connection, it is also to be seen that as per statements of P.W. 7 and P.W. 8, the accused had confessed his guilt before them on the date of the incident itself when they had visited the scene of occurrence, and thereafter both of them returned back to their houses and Sri Dharmveer Bhasin P.W. 7 gave information of this entire incident including the confessional statement of the accused to the S.P. on phone. Under these circumstances, when the information of the confessional statement of the accused had been given to the S.P., the S.P. in the natural course, must have given information of this confessional statement to the Investigating Officer of the case, and the Investigating Officer must have recorded the statements of both these witnesses incorporating confessional statement of the accused under Section 161, Cr.P.C. Sri Jai Prakash, Investigating Officer of the case (P. W. 4) has stated that he recorded statement of Sri Dharmveer Bhasin (P.W. 7) on 17.6.97 and of Sri Shailendra Singh (P.W. 8) on 20.6.97. We have gone through the statements of both these witnesses in the case diary which has been tagged with the file of the sessions trial. We have gone through the statements of both these witnesses in the case diary which has been tagged with the file of the sessions trial. A perusal of the statements of both these witnesses recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. goes to show that they have simply expressed their suspicion on the basis of circumstances that the murder was committed by the accused Mohd. Sadik and it has nowhere been written in their statements under Section 161, Cr.P.C. that the accused had confessed his guilt before them. On the other hand it has been recorded in their statements under Section 161, Cr.P.C. that the accused Mohd. Sadik was not present on the spot when they had reached there and this circumstances was leading them to the conclusion that he might have his hand in the incident. When the accused Mohd. Sadik was not present on the spot at the time of visit of both these witnesses, how could he make his extra-judicial confession before them as alleged by the prosecution? 21. In this connection it is also to be seen that the names of P.W. 7 and P.W. 8 do not find place in the list of witnesses enumerated at the back of the charge-sheet though it is a long list containing names of 19 witnesses. Sri Dharmveer Bhasin P.W. 7 has specifically stated at the last para of his statement that the Investigating Officer had never recorded his statement in connection with this case and P. W. 8 Sri Shailendar Singh has stated that he was giving the statement regarding the confessional statement of the accused for the first time in the Court. 22. Anyhow when the statements of these two witnesses recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. do not contain the so-called confessional statement of the accused, their statement recorded before the Court leads to the conclusion that the prosecution manoeuvred their statements developing the story of extra-judicial confession with a view to fabricate the evidence against the accused because in the absence of extra-judicial confession, there was actually no evidence in the case to warrant conviction of the accused. 23. It is also to be seen that when the names of these witnesses did not find place in the charge-sheet, they could not be produced in the Court without first seeking permission of the Court to produce them. 23. It is also to be seen that when the names of these witnesses did not find place in the charge-sheet, they could not be produced in the Court without first seeking permission of the Court to produce them. No permission was sought by the prosecution to produce them as is apparent from the order sheet of the date 14.5.99 on which they were produced as well as from the general index of the file of the Sessions Trial. It is apparent from the Index in which both these statements have been indexed as papers No. A 42 and A 43 that no application was moved on that date by the prosecution for permission to produce them nor there is any order on the order sheet granting permission to the prosecution to produce these witnesses. 24. In fact, the trial Court has committed procedural irregularities also in permitting examination of P.W. 7 and P.W. 8. When they were not named as witnesses in the charge-sheet, they could not be examined without seeking permission of the Court, but the Court permitted their examination without pressing for compliance of this formality. Moreover, when copies of their statements recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. had not been furnished to the accused earlier (copies of those statements only are furnished to the accused, who are named as witnesses in the charge-sheet and not of any other person examined by the Investigating Officer), these copies must have been provided to the accused at that time before recording statements of these witnesses but it was not done. The failure of the trial Court to do so has resulted into serious prejudice to the accused as well as gross miscarriage of justice, because the accused was deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine these witnesses on the point of absence of his confessional statement in their statements under Section 161, Cr.P.C. 25. It is, thus, clear that both these witnesses of extra-judicial confession are totally unreliable and after discarding their evidence there remains nothing on record to connect the accused with the crime, and the learned Additional Sessions Judge erred by holding that the charge under Section 302, IPC was sufficiently proved. His above finding, is perverse and is liable to be set aside. 26. The appeal, in this way, deserves to be allowed. His above finding, is perverse and is liable to be set aside. 26. The appeal, in this way, deserves to be allowed. The judgment and order passed by the Court below convicting the accused appellant under Section 302, IPC are liable to be set aside and the accused deserves to be acquitted of charge. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. The judgment and order of the trial Court convicting the accused appellant under Section 302, IPC and sentencing him to life imprisonment and to a fine of Rs. 2,000/- are hereby set aside and the accused is acquitted of the charge under Section 302, IPC. The accused is in jail. He shall be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case. 27. Dr. Abida Syeed assisted us well in deciding the appeal. She shall be paid Rs. 10,000/- as her fee by the State exchequer. ———