JUDGMENT Jaswant Singh, J.:- Appellant Rajender has filed the instant appeal aggrieved against judgment and order dated 25/26.1.2002 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jind, whereby he has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of payment of fine, further R.I for two years. 2. Case of the prosecution is unfolded by the statement (Ex.PB) given by Raghbir Singh (PW2) S/o Daya Singh, Caste Jogi, resident of Sahanpur, Ward No.1, Safidon, who was cousin of Angrej Nath (since deceased) before SI Jagat Singh(PW18) on 4.2.2001 wherein he stated that he is having vegetable shop in Sabji Mandi, Safidon. Angrej Nath S/o Udai Ram Jogi, resident of Sahanpur, who hails from his family became Sadhu about 20 years back and for the last 15 years, he was worshipping in Shiv Mandir, Bhuslana as a Sadhu. He stated that on 4.2.2001, he was going to village Sahanpur for some personal work and when he reached at about 8.00 AM near the gate constructed on road near village Sahanpur, there Parveen son of Bal Kishan, Bhatt, resident of Bhuslana met him and told that yesterday his cousins Subhash son of Chander Bhan, Jogi, Virender son of Shiv Nandan, Sunar, Roshan Lal son of Chander Bhan, Jogi, Jai Kishan son of Gunga residents of Didwara and one young boy, who was wearing Murki in his ears and sky blue colored pant and aged about 26/27 years and talking that he is resident of village Guhna Farmana were drinking liquor with said Angrej Nath in the evening. Young boy of village Guhna Farmana was saying to Angrej Nath the he should adopt him as his disciple (Chela). He is jat by caste and previously he was driver on a truck. One murder was committed by him earlier. Saying so the aforesaid, Parveen told that he left that place leaving them there while they were drinking. He further stated that on that day, when he reached Mandir in the morning as usual, he found Baba Angrej Nath murdered. Blood had oozed from mouth, ear and nose in huge quantity. His upper lip was having mark of cut and right ear was torn. An string made of cloth was in around shape in his neck. He further stated that on that day, when he reached Mandir in the morning as usual, he found Baba Angrej Nath murdered. Blood had oozed from mouth, ear and nose in huge quantity. His upper lip was having mark of cut and right ear was torn. An string made of cloth was in around shape in his neck. On hearing Parveen, he along with Satbir S/o Sobha Ram, Radhu Ram S/o Falel, Ram Sarup son of Baja, who belong to his family and village reached Shiv Mandir, Bhuslana and found his cousin Angrej Nath dead in his residential room. His dead body was lying on ‘Dari’ which was made to spread on the ground. Face of the dead body was upward and upperlip was having mark of cut and right ear was torn. 3. Then he got recorded his statement (Ex.PB) before SI-Jagat Singh on the basis of which FIR(Ex.PG) was recorded. On the basis of the statement (Ex.PB) by PW2-Raghbir, a formalised FIR (Ex.PJ) was recorded at Police Station, Safidon. SI Jagat Singh-PW18 prepared the inquest report (Ex.PE) in respect of the dead body. He lifted from the spot one blood-stained chaddar, one axe stained with blood, two kundals, which were converted into sealed parcels separately and the parcels were sealed with the seal of J.S. Sealed parceals were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PO. Rough site plan Ex.PQ of the place of occurrence was prepared. Dead body of said Angrej Nath was sent for post mortem. 4. After completion of the investigation, accused-appellant was charged under Section 302 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove its case, prosecution examined 19 witnesses and led documentary evidence. In the statement of accused-appellant recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, he raised the plea of false implication. 5. Learned trial Court on the basis of extra judicial confession made by the accused before Rajbir-PW14 and Raj Kumar-PW15 and the ‘last seen’ evidence led by PW4-Subhash, PW-Roshan and PW12- Mohkam convicted the accused-appellant and sentenced as aforesaid. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned senior DAG, Haryana for the State at length and with their able assistance have perused the evidence on record. 7. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned senior DAG, Haryana for the State at length and with their able assistance have perused the evidence on record. 7. Case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence and it is a well settled principle of law that for the circumstantial evidence to lead to conviction of an accused the circumstances from which the conclusion is to be drawn must be fully proved and they must form a link/chain so as to conclusively and clinchingly point towards the guilt of the accused and totally incompatible with his innocence. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that there is an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR and the intervening time has been used by the prosecution to fabricate and plant the evidence and thus falsely implicate the accused-appellant. It was then argued that the evidence of extra judicial confession and motive are wholly unreliable giving rise to serious doubts about the prosecution case. Lastly, it was argued that even the ‘last seen’ evidence is manipulated and contradictory regarding the identity of the accused-appellant, therefore, the entire case of the prosecution is tainted and the conviction is wholly illegal, thus liable to be set aside. On the other hand, learned state counsel has argued supporting the reasons adopted by the learned trial Court while convicting and sentencing the accused-appellant. 9. Prosecution in the present case has collected the following incriminating piece of evidence/circumstance namely: i) Last seen evidence of Pws Subhash, Roshan and Mohkam. ii) Extra judicial confession allegedly suffered by the accused before PW14 and PW15. iii) Motive 10. We first take up the argument with regard to question of delay in lodging the FIR and its effect. Occurrence is stated to be on the intervening night of 3/4.2.2001 in a room within the premises of Shiv Mandir, village Bhuslana, which is at a distance of 12 kms from the Police Station Safidon, District Jind. FIR No.72 dated 4.2.2001 under Section 302 IPC was registered in police station, Sadar Safidon at 1.30 PM on the basis of the statement Ex.PB made by PW2-Raghbir Singh at 1.15 PM to Sub Inspector/SHO Jagat Singh (PW18) of Police Station Safidon at Khansor Chowk, Safidon while the police officials were on duty. FIR No.72 dated 4.2.2001 under Section 302 IPC was registered in police station, Sadar Safidon at 1.30 PM on the basis of the statement Ex.PB made by PW2-Raghbir Singh at 1.15 PM to Sub Inspector/SHO Jagat Singh (PW18) of Police Station Safidon at Khansor Chowk, Safidon while the police officials were on duty. FIR Ex.PB and the inquest report Ex.PE disclose the date and hour of discovery of the death as ‘4.2.2001 at 1.15 PM’. Special report reached before the Magistrate Safidon at 4.10 PM on 4.2.2001. PW2-Raghbir in his testimony has stated that Parveen-PW3 met him at the phirni of his village Sahanpur at about 8.00 AM and told him about the murder of his cousin Angrej Nath. Thereupon, he informed his family members Satbir, Radu and Ramswaroop and they accompanied him to the Shiv Mandir, where dead body of Angrej Nath was lying. In his cross examination, he has stated that distance between the village Bhuslana and village Sahanpur is of 7-8 kms and he reached village Bhuslana at about 9.00 AM and his statement was recorded at Bhuslana at 11.00 AM or 12.00 Noon. PW4-Subhash, the witness of ‘last seen’ in his cross examination has stated that the police contacted him at about 9/9.30 AM on the morning of 4.2.2001 and summoned him at the spot. PW5- Roshan, the other witness of last seen has also in his cross-examination stated that he came to know about the murder of Baba at about 9 or 10.00 AM on the morning of 4.2.2001 as the police had reached his village Didwara and called him. He further stated that he with the police reached Shiv Mandir (Temple) at 10.15 AM. PW12 is also a resident of Didwara like Subhash PW4 and his brother PW5-Roshan and also a witness of last seen evidence, who in his cross examination, stated that the police took him to the temple at 9.30 AM and the police remained in the temple till around 2.00 or 3.00 PM. Thereafter, they were brought to the police station, Safidon, where they remained till evening. Thus, it appears that initially PW4-Subhash, his brother- PW5 and PW12 were themselves suspects. Thereafter, they were brought to the police station, Safidon, where they remained till evening. Thus, it appears that initially PW4-Subhash, his brother- PW5 and PW12 were themselves suspects. PW2-Raghbir(complainant) in his deposition has stated that PW3-Parveen of village Bhuslana had met him on phirni at his village Sahanpur at 8.00 AM and told him about the murder of his cousin Angrej Nath, however, no explanation has come as to how Raghbir knew Parveen or how Parveen recognized Raghbir. Even in the cross examination of PW3-Parveen, who was declared hostile, no suggestion has been put regarding his acquaintance with Raghbir so as to help him identify and disclose the fact of murder of Angrej Nath. It is, thus duly established that the police had reached the spot on the morning of 4.2.2001 and discovered the dead body of Angrej Nath and also proceeded to investigate by summoning Pws Subhash, Roshan and Mohkam and possibly Raghbir from their villages much prior to the lodging of the FIR at 1.30 PM on 4.2.2001. This circumstance to our mind raises serious suspicion regarding the prosecution version as the delay in lodging the FIR has been used to first investigate and then manipulate the prosecution version. 11. Next circumstance to be examined is of the accused being ‘last seen’ with the deceased Angrej Nath. PW4 Subhash resident of village Didwara has deposed that on the evening of 3.2.2001, he along with Hishma, Mohkam and Jai Kishan was in the room of Baba Angrej Nath in the premises at Shiv Temple Bhuslana and they consumed liquor with the said Baba. He further stated that accused Rajinder was already present with the said baba and upon inquiry, he had disclosed that he was a truck driver and belonged to village Guhna Pharmana and had murdered one person and due to the fear of the police, he had come to the baba and wanted to become his disciple. He stated that they all left the room of baba leaving behind accused and Baba Angrej Nath and the next morning, he came to know that baba had been murdered. In his cross examination, he stated that his village Didwara is situated at 2 kms from the spot of occurrence and he had remained at the temple from 4.30 PM till 6.30 PM. In his cross examination, he stated that his village Didwara is situated at 2 kms from the spot of occurrence and he had remained at the temple from 4.30 PM till 6.30 PM. PW12 Mohkam Singh resident of village Didwara has more or less stated on similar lines and thus corroborated the version of PW4- Subhash. He stated that one boy of village Bhuslana had also come to the temple but he does not know his name (it is possibly Parveen- PW3). PW5-Roshan, brother of PW4-Subhash has also corroborated the evidence of PW4, although PW4-Subhash has not deposed that Roshan PW5 was present. Complainant Raghbir-PW2 in his statement Ex.PB before the police, on the basis of which formalized FIR had been lodged, has stated that Parveen (PW3) son of Bal Kishan R/o Bhuslana had told him that on 3.2.2001 in the evening, his cousin Subhash, Roshan, Virender, Jai Kishan, Hishma and Mohkam and one young boy, who was wearing murki in his ears and who disclosed that he was a resident of village Guhna Pharmana, were drinking liquor with Angrej Nath. Young boy of village Guhna Pharmana was stated to be saying to Angrej Nath that he should adopt him as his disciple (chela). He has also disclosed that he is Jat by caste and previously he was a driver on a truck and a murder was committed by him earlier. Thus, the FIR was lodged on the disclosure by Parveen to the complainant regarding such facts. PW3-Parveen though turned hostile, however, in his deposition before the Court, he stated on oath that he had visited the room of Angrej Nath in Shiv Mandir in the evening on 3.2.2001 and found 4-5 persons of village Didwara, whose names he did not know, to be there. He specifically disclosed that he has seen accused Rajinder present in the court today and that “he had not seen him in the temple on that date”. He specifically disclosed that he has seen accused Rajinder present in the court today and that “he had not seen him in the temple on that date”. In his cross examination, he admitted that he had told the police that one young boy wearing a ring in his ears and a pant of sky color with a shirt was telling that he was from village Guhna Pharmana and that he was a driver thus supporting his version as disclosed by the prosecution in the FIR namely that a young boy wearing Murki belonging to village Guhna Pharmana was the person, who had been left behind with deceased Angrej Nath after drinking session on the evening of 3.2.2001. He, however, categorically deposed that the accused Rajinder was not the same person. He further denied telling the police that the person in the photograph Ex.P.1 i.e accused Rajinder was the person, he had seen on the evening of 3.2.2001. Therefore, from the evidence of hostile witness Parveen-PW3, it is proved that accused Rajinder was not the person present in the temple on the evening of 3.2.2001. Even otherwise as per the first version of the police in the FIR, the identity of the culprit was that of a young man with ring in his ears belonging to village Guhna Pharmana. Admittedly, accused Rajinder belongs to village Bhatgaon and has been identified by last seen witnesses Subhash, Roshan Mohkan by his photograph Ex.P.1. It has not been explained at all as to how this photograph Ex.P.1 came about in the police file relating to this case. SI Jagat Singh(PW18) has not uttered even a whisper with regard to photograph (Ex.P.1) of accused Rajinder. PW18 has deposed that on 18.3.2001, he was transferred and the investigation of this case was handed over to SIRam Kumar (PW19) and PW19 Ram Kumar in his cross examination has stated that the photograph of the accused was already in the police file when he took over charge as SI/SHO, Police Station, Safidon. PW19-Ram Kumar has further deposed that the identification of the accused Rajender on the basis of Ex.P.1 by the witnesses was got done in the police station. He in his main deposition stated that the photograph of accused Rajinder Ex.P.1 was identified by Subhash- PW4 and Roshan-PW5 etc on 10.4.2001. PW19-Ram Kumar has further deposed that the identification of the accused Rajender on the basis of Ex.P.1 by the witnesses was got done in the police station. He in his main deposition stated that the photograph of accused Rajinder Ex.P.1 was identified by Subhash- PW4 and Roshan-PW5 etc on 10.4.2001. It is further discernible from his deposition that the accused Rajender was arrested on 14.4.2001 when he was produced in the Police Station Safidon by the witness of Extra Judicial Confession namely PW14 and PW15. We have also perused Ex.P.1 and it is apparent that the same was taken in police custody. Therefore, it can safely be concluded that the identity of the culprit present with the deceased Angrej Nath on the evening of 3.2.2001 cannot be that of accused-appellant Rajinder as from the material placed on record by the prosecution, no inference regarding his presence at the place of occurrence on that fateful night can be drawn against the accused Rajinder. 12. Prosecution in support of the evidence of extra judicial confession has produced PW14-Rajbir and PW15-Raj Kumar. PW14- Rajbir R/o Sahanpur has stated that on 14.4.2001 he was present at Railway Station Safidon Mandi, when Rajinder accused asked him about the way to Bus Stand, Safidon. He told him the way and asked him about the name of his village. Thereupon, accused Rajinder in reply told the name of his village as Bhatgaon. He then told Raghbir- PW2 about the accused that he may be the person, who committed the murder of baba Angrej Nath. Raghbir told him that he will come when Raj Kumar President-PW15 and the accused should be retained by him while offering a cup of tea. PW15-Raj Kumar, who is Director of Backward Classes Corporation, Welfare Corporation, Haryana and member Second Backward Classes Commission, Haryana, thereafter at about 5.30 PM on 14.4.2001 along with Raghbir met PW14-Rajbir and accused Rajinder and upon inquiry accused told all three of them that he had committed the murder of baba Angrej Nath out of greed of Rs.20,000/- expected to be lying with him but only a sum of Rs.160/- were found with baba after committing his murder. He further deposed that the accused had also told that he had committed another murder of another baba in Sonepat district. He further deposed that the accused had also told that he had committed another murder of another baba in Sonepat district. It is well settled principle of evidence that extra judicial confession is a weak type evidence and has to be very carefully scrutinized & should not be accepted without corroboration. In the present case, we find this evidence to be totally unbelievable. It cannot be disputed that Pws Rajbir, Raj Kumar and Raghbir were complete strangers to the accused Rajinder and he could not possibly have any confidence in them nor could he have any hope of being helped by them. The position of authority of Raj Kumar was also not disclosed to the accused Rajinder so as to implore him to make such statement. He, in any case, disclosed that he is resident of village ‘Bhatgaon’ whereas Rajbir & Raghbir were possibly looking for a young man, who belonged to village Guhna Pharmana as stated in the FIR. There is absolutely nothing on record to show even remotely as to how accused Rajinder could be identified as culprit by Rajbir. Still further, no recoveries have been made in pursuance of the alleged extra judicial confession, which could connect the accused Rajinder with the death of Angrej Nath. Therefore, the entire evidence of extra judicial confession is unreliable, suspicious and does not inspire evidence. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on it to support the link of circumstances in order to establish the guilt of the accused. Even the motive of trying to steal Rs.20,000/- from the baba would have to be brushed aside in view of the entire evidence of PW14 and PW15 being rejected. 13. Therefore, from the evidence led by the prosecution, it cannot be said that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt. In fact, in our view, the prosecution has miserably failed to lead any evidence against the accused, which may point towards the guilt of the accused. In view of the above aforesaid discussion, while allowing the instant appeal, we set aside the order of conviction dated 26.1.2002 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jind and acquit the accused-appellant of the charge levelled against him. ------------------------