JUDGMENT 1. The State has filed this appeal against the judgment of acquittal of respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'accused') for offences punishable under sections 302 & 201 IPC. 2. We have heard Sri P.M. Nawaz, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for State and Sri L. Raja learned counsel for accused. We have been taken through evidence and the impugned judgment. 3. In brief, the case of prosecution is as follows: - The accused married deceased Jayaiaxmi on 12.06.1996. PW1-K.Ningegowda and PW2-Chikkalingamma are the parents of deceased. Jayaiaxmi. PW3-Kempamma is the maternal grandmother of deceased Jayaiaxmi. PW4-Nagalingamma is the younger sister of PW2 and maternal junior aunt of deceased Jayaiaxmi. PW5-Mamatha is the daughter of PW4. PW6-Raju is the younger brother of the deceased. After marriage, the deceased was living in the house of accused in Lingapattana Village. The accused suspected that the deceased had illicit intimacy before her marriage and she was carrying 31/2 months pregnancy within 21/2 months from, the date of their marriage. On 01.09.1996, when the deceased was living in the house of PW4, the accused by making a false representation to PW4 that he was taking her to Nanjanagud, took the deceased to Shimsha river near Thorekadanahalli, Malavalli Taluk, The accused pushed the deceased into Shimsha river, which was in full spate and caused her death. PW1 learnt that the accused and deceased were not found in their house at Lingapattana and searched for the deceased and could not trace the deceased. The accused was found in the house of his relative (PW13-D.Puttaswamy) in Yathambadi. PW1 and others brought the accused to Halagur. In the presence of panchayatdars, accused made an extra judicial confession that he was suspecting fidelity of his wife and he took her to Shimsha river near Thorekadanahalli and pushed her into river and caused her death. PW1 and others came to Shimsha river near Thorekadanahalli and searched for the deceased, but they could not trace the dead body. On 17.10.1996, PW1 lodged first information and set criminal law into motion The Investigating Officer registered a case against accused for aforestated offences and recorded the statements of witnesses and visited the place of incident and prepared spot mahazar. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against: accused for aforestated offences. 4. Daring trial, PW1 to PW22 were examined and documents as per Ex.P. 1 to Ex.P. 15 were marked. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against: accused for aforestated offences. 4. Daring trial, PW1 to PW22 were examined and documents as per Ex.P. 1 to Ex.P. 15 were marked. On behalf of defence, the contradictory portions in the statements of some of the witnesses recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C, were marked as Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.9. 5. The learned trial Judge on appreciation of evidence and on hearing learned counsel for parties acquitted the accused. Therefore, the State is before us. 6. The accused has not disputed the missing of his wife. The accused has pleaded ignorance regarding whereabouts of his wife. As could be seen from the case of prosecution, it is a case where corpus delicti was not found. 7. The prosecution has relied on circumstantial evidence to prove that homicidal death of deceased was caused by the accused. The circumstances relied on by the prosecution are as follows:- I. Motive II. Deceased. Jayalaxmi was last seen alive in the company of accused III. Extra judicial confession IV. The conduct of accused I. Motive. 8. The father (PW1) and close relatives of deceased have not deposed that the relationship between accused and deceased was strained. As could be seen front the evidence of PW1, the marital life of accused and the deceased was very short; their marriage was performed on 12.06.1.996 and the deceased was missing from 01.09.1996. During the above period, there was intervening ashadamasa for a period of two months. During ashadamasa the deceased had left her marital house, for sometime she was living in her parental house, for some time in the house of her maternal grandmother (PW3) and for some time in the house of her maternal junior aunt (PW4). As the stay of deceased in the house of accused was short, we do not find either direct or circumstantial evidence that there was strained relationship between accused and the deceased. The prosecution has relied on extra judicial confession said to have been made by accused on 05.09.1996 before PW1 and other panchayatdars to the effect that, accused suspecting fidelity of his wife with the intention to commit murder of deceased took her to Shimsha river near Thorekadanahalli and pushed her into the liver on 02.09.1996. The prosecution has relied on extra judicial confession said to have been made by accused on 05.09.1996 before PW1 and other panchayatdars to the effect that, accused suspecting fidelity of his wife with the intention to commit murder of deceased took her to Shimsha river near Thorekadanahalli and pushed her into the liver on 02.09.1996. The proof of motive and also circumstance of deceased being last seen alive in the company of accused depends upon proof of extra judicial confession said to have been made by accused before PW1 and others. 9. After going through the evidence of PW1, we find that PW1 lodged missing report (Ex.P1) at 9 p.m. on 05.09.1996. PW1 has deposed; that he lodged missing report after the accused made an extra judicial confession, confessing to crime, however in the missing report lodged on 05.09.1996, we do not find so called extra judicial confession or motive for the accused to commit murder of his wife. In Ex.P.1 it is not stated that accused took his wife on 02.09.1996. PW1 lodged first information giving details of extra judicial confession and that deceased was last seen alive in the company of accused on 17.10.1996. PW1 and other close relatives of deceased have deposed about extra judicial confession stated to have been made by the accused on 05.09.1996. Immediately after extra judicial confession was made by the accused, he was not apprehended by PW1 and other persons, on the other hand, accused had been set free. After learning about commission of murder of his daughter by the accused, PW1 did not go to police station to set criminal law into motion, on the other hand, first information was lodged after one month and 12 days, narrating the extra judicial confession made by the accused and that the deceased was last seen alive in the company of accused. PW1 has not offered any explanation for inordinate delay in lodging the first information. We also see from the conduct of accused and other prosecution witnesses that, the accused was set free by PW1 and others even after alleged extra judicial confession made by accused. If the accused had taken the deceased from the house of PW4 on 02.09.1996. PW1. who in fact had searched for deceased in several places would not have omitted to mention the same in the missing report filed on 05.09.1996. If the accused had taken the deceased from the house of PW4 on 02.09.1996. PW1. who in fact had searched for deceased in several places would not have omitted to mention the same in the missing report filed on 05.09.1996. If the accused had made an extra judicial confession in presence of PW1 and other panchayatdars, the natural conduct of PW1 and panchayatdars was to apprehend the accused and take him to the place where he had allegedly pushed the deceased into Shimsha river. PW1 or other witnesses have not deposed that accused was apprehended after he had confessed to the, crime before them. This apart, PW1 did not bother to inform the police till. 17.10.1996 though accused had made an extra judicial confession on 05.09.1996. The Investigating Officer before whom missing report was pending investigation was not informed about the extra judicial confession stated to have been made by the accused. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to adduce satisfactory evidence in proof of motive. 10. It is the case of prosecution that on 02.09.1996 accused took the deceased from the house of PW4. In order to prove this circumstance, the prosecution has relied on the evidence of PW1 to PW4. As already stated, the deceased had stayed in the house of accused for a few days. PW1 has deposed that two months after marriage, accused had taken the deceased to the house of PW4; they did not return back; after 3 or 4 days, the father of accused came and informed PW1 that accused and deceased, who had gone to the house of PW4 in Kodihosahalli Village have not returned back; therefore, PW1 sent his son (PW6) to Kodihosahalli village; PW6 visited the house of PW4 and learnt from PW4 that accused had taken the deceased to Nanjangud temple; therefore, PW1 thought that accused might have taken the deceased to Nanjangud temple and kept quite; on the following day, one Dhadigowda of Nittur Village came and informed PW1 that accused was staying in the house of Puttaswamy in Ethambadi Village, but the deceased was not staying there; therefore, PW1 visited the house of Puttaswamy in Ethambadi Village and brought the accused to Halagur and a panchayat was convened. PW1. has deposed; in the presence of PW1 and other panchayatdars, accused confessed to the crime. 11. PW1. has deposed; in the presence of PW1 and other panchayatdars, accused confessed to the crime. 11. in the discussion made supra, we have discussed the veracity of extra judicial confession said to have been made by accused. The evidence of PW1 that accused and deceased had gone to the house of PW4 in Kodihosahalli Village after a period of two months from the date of their marriage does not find corroboration from the evidence of PW2-Chikkalingamma (wife of PW1). 12. PW2-Chikkalingamma has deposed; that marriage of deceased and the accused was performed in Athmalingeshwara Temple at Hanumanthanagar; after marriage, the deceased was staying in the house of accused in his village at Lingapattana; one day before Varamahalaxmi Festival, accused had left the deceased in her parental house; deceased stayed in the house of her parents for 3 days; PW6 took the deceased to the house of accused and left her in the house of accused after 3 days, the mother of PW2 (PW3) visited the house of accused and requested to send the deceased to her house, but the accused refused; 3 days thereafter, accused brought the deceased and left her in the house of PW3; when the deceased was living in the house of PW3, PW4 visited the house of PW3 and took the deceased to perform Shravana Shanivara pooja in her house at Kodihosahalli village; accused took the deceased from the house of PW4. 13. PW3-Kempamma is the maternal grandmother of deceased. PW3 has deposed; on the following day of marriage, PW3 had brought the deceased and accused to her house and they stayed there for 2 days and nuptials was performed in the house of PW3; thereafter the deceased was sent to the house of accused; during ashadamasa, PW3 brought; the deceased to her house; now and then accused was visiting the house of PW3; after completion of ashadamasa, accused took the deceased to his house: thereafter, PW3 visited the house of accused and requested him to send the deceased with her, but the accused refused; however, on the following day, accused brought the deceased and left her in the house of PW3; PW4 visited the house of PW3 and took the deceased to her house. 14. 14. PW4-Nagalingamma is the maternal junior aunt of deceased, PW4 has deposed; that she had visited the house of PW3 to take the deceased to her house to perform shravana shanivara pooja; PW3 pleaded her inability therefore, PW4 took the deceased to her house; accused came to the house of PW4 and stayed there: on the following day, accused told PW4 that they would be going to Nanjangud temple and took the deceased from the house of PW4; thereafter the deceased was never seen alive. 15. The evidence of PW1 to PW4 does not prove that deceased was in the company of accused in the house of PW4 either on 01.09.1996 or on 02.09.1996. PW3 has deposed that deceased had stayed in her house during entire period of ashadamasa. PW4 has deposed that she had brought the deceased of her house to perform Shravana Shanivara pooja. Above all PW1, who had learnt that, accused had taken the deceased from the house of PW4 on 02.09.1996 had not narrated the same in. the missing report filed on 05.09.1996. In our considered opinion, the prosecution has relied on the evidence of circumstance of deceased being last seen alive in the company of accused on the basis of extra judicial confession said to have been made by the accused. 16. We also notice from the missing report lodged by PW1 on 05.09.1996. PW1 who is none other than the lather of deceased has omitted to state such grave incriminating circumstances against the accused. In our considered opinion, if PW1 was aware that accused had taken the deceased from the house of PW4, PW1. would not have omitted to state the same in the missing report, lodged on 05.09.1996. If PW1 was aware of these circumstances viz. motive; deceased was last, seen alive in the company of accused; extra judicial confession said to have been made by accused on 05.09.1996, he would not have waited till 17.10.1996 to report the same to police. PW1 lodged first information (Ex.P.2) at 7 p.m., on 17.10.1996, narrating all the events that are alleged to have occurred from the date of marriage till the date on which the accused took the deceased from the house of PW4, This inordinate delay in lodging the first information containing grave incriminating circumstances against the accused would detract the evidence given by PW1. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove that the deceased was last seen alive in the company of accused. 17. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor referring to the conduct of accused would submit that accused was absconding from 05.09.1996 to 18.-10.1996. 18. We are not persuaded to accept this submission. The Investigating Officer has not placed any material to show that he had set up investigation team to trace the accused during above said period. PW1 and other witnesses have deposed that accused had made an extra judicial confession on 05.09.1996. narrating the motive for commission of offence and the manner in which deceased was done to death, however accused was set free by PW1 and other, panchayatdars. If accused had made an extra judicial confession in the presence of PW1 and other panchayatdars, it looks improbable that PW1 and other panchayatdars had let him free. The prosecution has not established that the deceased was last seen alive in the company of accused before commission of crime, on the other hand, it is the case of prosecution that deceased was found missing from 02.09.1996 from the house of PW4. The evidence of prosecution that accused had visited the house of PW4 does not inspire confidence. The evidence on record does not indicate that deceased was in the company of accused either on 01.09.1996 or 02.09.1996. There is no evidence on record that accused was absconding. Therefore, from the conduct of accused, it is not possible to draw an inference of guilt of accused. 19. In a decision reported in Rama Nand and Others Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1981 SC 738 , the Supreme Court has held: 16. It is well settled that where the inference of guilt of an accused person is to be drawn from circumstantial evidence only, those circumstances must, in the first place, be cogently established. Further, those circumstances should be of a definite tendency pointing towards the guilt of the accused, and in their totality, must unerringly lead to the conclusion that within all human probability, the offence was committed by the accused and none else. 20. In a decision reported in Ram Chandra and Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1957 SC 381 , the Supreme Court has held:- 6. 20. In a decision reported in Ram Chandra and Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1957 SC 381 , the Supreme Court has held:- 6. In this case the outstanding feature is that there is no tangible evidence, either of a direct or of a circumstantial nature, in support of the fact that the murder has been committed. It is true that in law a conviction for an offence does not necessarily depend upon the corpus delicti being found. There may be reliable evidence, direct or circumstantial, of the commission of the murder though the corpus delicti are not traceable. But the question before us is whether the confession by the alleged murderer, by itself, and without more is enough as a matter of prudence, if not of law, to base a conviction for murder thereupon.... In the case on hand, the prosecution has not placed evidence to prove the circumstances put forth by it. 23. The learned trial Judge on proper appreciation of evidence has held the accused not guilty of offences for which he was tried. On re-appreciation of evidence, we find that the prosecution has failed to prove definite circumstance pointing towards the guilt of accused. There is no clinching evidence in proof or circumstances put forth by the prosecution We do not find any reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment. 22. Therefore, we pass the following:- Order 23. The appeal is dismissed.