Judgment : V. M. KANADE,J. 1. The appellant Shivaji Vasant Bagale has filed this appeal against the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sawantwadi, Sindhudurga, dated 13th December, 1990. By the said judgment and order the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the I. P. Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-and in default in payment of fine to suffer further three months simple imprisonment. He is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the I.P. Code and sentenced to suffer one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 200/-; in default to suffer further simple imprisonment for one month. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The brief facts in nutshell are as under- The deceased Sudha was residing at village Terse-Bambarde, taluka Kudal. She was wife of Arjun Puralkar who was residing in Mumbai. On 7-11-1988 deceased Sudha left her house to purchase food grains and other articles from the fair price shop at about 3.00 p.m. and after purchasing the required articles from the fair price shop, she went to the house of maternal uncle Ankush Daji Gawade (PW 6), had a cup of tea and left his place at about 5.30 p.m. However, she did not return home and therefore, efforts were made by her relatives to find her and a missing report was thereafter lodged at the police station. The said missing report was reduced into writing by the police and signature of PW 1 Govind Puralkar was obtained. Thereafter on the next day, again PW 1 who was brother of the husband of deceased Sudha along with others and while passing the place, called Rede Galli they found broken pieces of bangles and slippers of deceased Sudha and therefore information was given to the police. Soon after the police arrived at the spot and at that time Daji Gawade (PW 7) informed the police that Shivaji Bagale, the appellant herein, was seen on the previous night besides the bushes at Redegalli and accordingly, police went in search of Shivaji Bagale. He was arrested in presence of witnesses and police made inquiry with the accused and took search of his clothes and found a Mangalsutra. He was arrested in presence of witnesses and police made inquiry with the accused and took search of his clothes and found a Mangalsutra. At that time the accused confessed that he had committed the murder of Sudha and thrown her dead body in a well and thereafter accused took them towards the well. Thereafter the dead body was recovered from the well. FIR was registered and thereafter sari of the deceased was recovered at the instance of the accused from another well. So also the articles such as the bag and the tin in which rationing articles were purchased by the deceased were recovered at his instance. The prosecution examined 20 witnesses and closed its evidence. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C. The trial court held that the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt and convicted the accused. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that case of the prosecution was based on the circumstantial evidence. It was submitted that chain of circumstances on which reliance was placed by the prosecution has not been established beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution and there was a missing link in the prosecution case. It was submitted that the entire prosecution case was based on the extra judicial confession of the accused in presence of the witnesses when he was apprehended by the police and that as a result of the said confession before the police he had shown the place where the dead body was thrown in the well and the said dead body was recovered at his instance. It was submitted that the said extra judicial confession and the discovery which was made at the instance of the accused has to be discarded, being hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act and being violative of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. Secondly, it was submitted that there were several discrepancies, contradictions and omissions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in respect of various circumstances and therefore, no reliance could be placed on the evidence of said prosecution witnesses. Thirdly, it was submitted that two different versions have been given regarding the apprehension by the police and admittedly no panchanama was made when search of the appellant was taken. Thirdly, it was submitted that two different versions have been given regarding the apprehension by the police and admittedly no panchanama was made when search of the appellant was taken. No panchanama was made at the time of recovery of dead body by the accused and therefore, the circumstances about the so called recovery of Mangalsutra and Rs.67/-as well as the dead body, could not be relied upon. Similarly, the recovery of ration articles allegedly purchased by deceased Sudha at the instance of appellant on 9-11-1988, recovery of sari of deceased Sudha on 10-11-1988 could not be relied upon. He also submitted that the witnesses had suppressed the material fact that relation of the deceased with her husband was strained. The learned counsel has taken us through the evidence of the witnesses and also the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court. 4. On the other hand, learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has submitted that the prosecution had established the chain of circumstances which clearly point out to the guilt of the accused. She submitted that upon the discovery of the spot at which the incident had taken place, the police sprung into action and name of the appellant cropped up as a person who was seen at the spot on the earlier date by PW 2 and therefore, police went in search of the accused and the accused was apprehended. He was searched and a Mangalsutra was found in his pocket. He then confessed to the police and showed the dead body which was removed from the well at his instance. Thereafter the sari was also recovered at his instance from another well and the rationing articles which were kept behind the bushes were also recovered. It is, therefore, submitted that these circumstances clearly indicated involvement of the accused/appellant in the commission of the said offence. He also relied upon the two judgments of the Apex Court in support of his submission. REASONS 5. Before we advert to the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused and the State, it has to be noted that entire case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. He also relied upon the two judgments of the Apex Court in support of his submission. REASONS 5. Before we advert to the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused and the State, it has to be noted that entire case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. It has to be kept in mind that in case where evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn are in the first instance to be fully established and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Secondly, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature, and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. To put it in other words, there must be a chain of evidence is so complete that it will not leave any reasonable ground for drawing a conclusion consistent with innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. 6. The Apex Court in a series of decisions has consistently held that when a case rests upon the circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests- (1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; (2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; (3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete there that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence [ see : Gambhir v. State of Maharashtra (1982 Cri. L. J. 1243) ]; 7. It is an admitted position that in the present case the prosecution is relying on circumstantial evidence. It is necessary, therefore, to lay down the circumstances on which the reliance is placed by the prosecution to prove its case (1). L. J. 1243) ]; 7. It is an admitted position that in the present case the prosecution is relying on circumstantial evidence. It is necessary, therefore, to lay down the circumstances on which the reliance is placed by the prosecution to prove its case (1). On the date of the incident i.e. on 7-11-1988 the deceased Sudha left her house at about 3.00 p.m. to purchase articles from a fair price shop which is situated at a distance of about one & half miles from her residence. While going to the rationing shop, she was wearing Mangalsutra, two ear rings, a green coloured sari; she was also waring green colour bangles and had a tin in her hand along with cotton bags; (2) she purchased the food-grains from the fair price shop; (3) after purchasing food-grains, she went to the house of her maternal uncle PW 7, had a cup of tea and left his house at 5.30 p.m. (confirm timing); (4) she did not return home and therefore, her relatives made every effort to find her. However, here whereabouts were not located and therefore, a missing report was lodged by her maternal uncle with the police station on the same date; (5) on the next day, again all of them went in search of deceased Sudha. At one place, they found broken bangles and it appeared that there was scuffle at that place. Therefore, this information was given to the police and police arrived at the scene; (6) PW 7 Daji informed the police that PW 2 had told him that he had seen the accused hiding in the bushes on the earlier date and therefore, the police went in search of the accused; (7) the police found accused, enquired with him, took search of his clothes and found a Mangalsutra in his pocket. He thereafter confessed that he had committed murder of deceased Sudha and agreed to show the place where he had thrown her dead body in a well; (8) the accused along with police and another witnesses showed the well where he had thrown the dead body and the said body was removed from the well with the help of a bamboo stick; (9) the accused was arrested and remanded to the police custody and on 9-11-1988 he agreed to show the place where the rationing articles purchased by deceased Sudha were kept. Accordingly, they were discovered at his instance and the panchanama was made in presence of panchas; (10) three days thereafter discovery of sari was made at his instance from another well; (11) a post-mortem was performed and the doctor gave his opinion that it was a homicidal death. These are the circumstances on which reliance was placed by the prosecution to establish guilt of the accused in commission of the said offence of murder. 8. The prosecution, therefore, has mainly relied on the discovery of dead body at the instance of the accused; recovery of Mangalsutra from his pocket; and subsequent recovery of rationing articles and sari at his instance. The prosecution also relied on the statement of PW 2 who alleged that he had seen the accused hiding behind the bushes in the evening at about 5.30 p.m. on the said road where the incident had taken place and the statement of the witnesses to corroborate the search which was undertaken and the information about pointing out spot to the police and the subsequent apprehension of the accused in the village. Physical search has been taken by the police and the recovery is made at his instance and the statement of the witnesses to the effect that she was wearing a Mangalsutra and ear rings and identification of the Mangalsutra which was found in the pocket of the accused. The police also relied on the spot panchanama, inquest panchanama and recovery of rationing articles and panchanama of recovery of sari and the evidence of the panch witnesses. 9. Before we scrutinize and appreciate the evidence to see whether the said circumstances mentioned hereinabove have been established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, it will be necessary to take into consideration the legal position in respect of (1) search of the accused by the police and seizure of the articles from his person; (2) evidentiary value of the things which are recovered at the instance of the accused. Section 51 of the Criminal Procedure Code lays down the provisions in respect of search of arrested person which reads as under - “S. 51. Section 51 of the Criminal Procedure Code lays down the provisions in respect of search of arrested person which reads as under - “S. 51. Search of arrested person – (1) Whenever a person is arrested by police officer under a warrant which does not provide for the taking of bail, or under a warrant which provides for the taking of bail but the person arrested cannot furnish bail, and whenever a person is arrested without warrant, or by a private person under a warrant and cannot legally be admitted to bail or is unable to furnish bail, the officer making the arrest or, when the arrest is made by a private person, the police officer to whom he makes over the person arrested, may search such person, and place in safe custody all articles, other than necessary wearing apparel, found upon him and where any article is seized from the arrested person, a receipt showing the articles taken in possession by the police officer shall be given to such person. (2) Whenever it is necessary to cause a female to be searched, the search shall be made by another female with strict regard to decency.” Plain reading of the aforesaid provision clearly discloses that there is no provision which requires the panch to be called in case of search of the person. However, an obligation is to put on the police officer to put all the articles which are on his person in police custody and give receipt showing the articles taken in possession by the police officer to such person. 10. Section 46 of the Criminal Procedure Code lays down how an arrest is to be made. Section 46 reads as under- “S.46 Arrest how made – (1) in making an arrest the police officer or other person making the same shall actually touch or confine the body of the person to be arrested, unless there be a submission to the custody by word or action. (2) If such person forcibly resists the endeavour to arrest him, or attempts to evade the arrest, such police officer or other person may use all means necessary to effect the arrest. (3) Nothing in this section gives a right to cause the death of a person who is not accused of an offence punishable with death or with imprisonment for life. (3) Nothing in this section gives a right to cause the death of a person who is not accused of an offence punishable with death or with imprisonment for life. [(4) Save in exceptional circumstances, no woman shall be arrested after sunset and before sunrise, and where such exceptional circumstances exist, the woman police officer shall, by making a written report, obtain the prior permission of the Judicial Magistrate of the first class within whose local jurisdiction the offence is committed or the arrest is to be made.] The word ‘arrested person’ which is used in section 51, therefore, has to be read in the context of provisions of section 46 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It follows, therefore, that even if person is not taken in custody in the police station when formally his body is confined by the police by touching, it would amount arrest of the person. 11. Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that confession of the accused when he is in custody of the police station though it is not admissible under section 25 or 26, if such confession is supported by discovery of a fact, the confession has to be presumed to be true to that extent of discovery. The Privy Council in the case of – Pulukuri Kottaya and Ors. Vs. EmperorA.I.R. (34) 1947 Privy Council 67 has observed as under- “10. Section 27, which is not artistically worded, provides an exception to the prohibition imposed by the preceding section, and enables certain statements made by a person in police custody to be proved. The condition necessary to bring the section into operation is that discovery of a fact in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence in the custody of a Police Officer must be deposed to, and thereupon so much of the information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered may be proved. The section seems to be based on the view that if a fact is actually discovered in consequence of information given, some guarantee is afforded thereby that the information was true, and accordingly can be safely allowed to be given in evidence; but clearly the extent of the information admissible must depend on the exact nature of the fact discovered to which such information is required to relate. Normally the section is brought into operation when a person in police custody produces from some place of concealment some object, such as a dead body, a weapon, or ornaments, said to be connected with the crime of which the informant is accused.” Various requirements of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act can be summed up as follows- (i) the fact of which the evidence is sought to be given, must be relevant to the issue; (ii) the fact must have been discovered; (iii) the discovery must have been made in consequence of some information received from the accused and not by accused’s own act; (iv) a person giving the information must be accused of any offence; (v) he must be in custody of the police officer; (vi) the discovery of an act must be deposed to; (vii) only that portion of the information which relates distinctly or strictly to the fact can be discovered; 12. The doctrine, therefore, is founded on the principle that if any act is discovered after the search is carried out on the search of any information obtained from the prisoner, such discovery is a guarantee that the information supplied by the prisoner is true. It goes without saying, therefore, that recovery of articles at the instance of the accused has to be proved by the independent witnesses and not merely on the statement of the police officer, unless it is shown that compulsion has been used in obtaining the information. The Apex Court in the case of – Prabhoo Vs. State of U.P. AIR 1963 SC 1113 observed that statement of the accused that axe with which the murder has been committed and his blood stained and dhoti were in the house, – were incriminating statements made to the police officer and were hit by Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, and these statements were not admissible in evidence. It further held that the circumstantial chain in the case production of the gandasabut on the other circumstances as well and the decision did not proceed merely on the production of a blood-stained weapon. Similarly, in the case of –State of Haryana Vs. It further held that the circumstantial chain in the case production of the gandasabut on the other circumstances as well and the decision did not proceed merely on the production of a blood-stained weapon. Similarly, in the case of –State of Haryana Vs. Ram Singh AIR 2002 SC 620 , the Apex Court has held that “where all disclosures, discoveries and even arrests have been made in the presence of the same three totally interested witnesses and no independent witness was found out for the said purpose, it creates doubt, benefit of which must go to the accused”. Similarly, in the case of – Bakshish Singh Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1971 SC 2016 it was held that “recovery of the dead body on the information given by the accused, only raised strong suspicion against the accused”. 13. Keeping in view the aforesaid observations made by the Apex Court on the aspects of recovery, search and seizure by the police from the accused, it will have to be examined whether the prosecution has conclusively proved each circumstance against the accused. 14. Prosecution has examined in all 20 witnesses. There are no eye witnesses to the said incident. P.W.1 - Govind Bhiva Puralkar is the brother of the husband of the deceased. He has stated that the deceased Sudha went to bring ration from fair-price shop at about 3.00 P.M. and did not come back till about 6.30 P.M and that she was wearing earrings and there was Mangalsutra on her neck and she was wearing green coloured saree. He has also stated that she had worn slippers while going out and when she did not return till 6.30 P.M., he sent his son Rajan Govind to see her and one Amrut with Vishnu and one other person also had accompanied his son. They made inquiry at fair-price shop. However, they learnt that she had left after purchasing the food-grains. They also learnt that deceased Sudha had gone to the house of her maternal uncle Ankush Gawade. He, however, informed P.W.1’s son that she had left at about 5.30 P.M. He has stated that, thereafter, all of them tried to find her. However, there was no trace of Sudha and, therefore, he lodged a missing complaint at the Police Station. According to P.W.1, on the next day morning, he again went in search of Sudha alongwith his brother and maternal nephew. However, there was no trace of Sudha and, therefore, he lodged a missing complaint at the Police Station. According to P.W.1, on the next day morning, he again went in search of Sudha alongwith his brother and maternal nephew. They also met Ankush Gawade while they were searching her. While they were passing from the place called Redegali, they found broken pieces of bangles and slippers of Sudha. He, therefore, identified those bangles and slippers. They felt that some misshaped had taken place and they stayed there and sent Kashiram to the Police Station and after some time Kashiram and Police returned to the place within a short time. Police were shown bangles and slippers. At that time, Daji Gawade came there. He informed the Police that the accused Shivaji Bagale was seen there at previous night and, therefore, Police went in search of Shivaji Bagale. He identified the accused before the Court. According to him, Police brought the accused at the place where they were sitting and the Police made inquiry with the accused and the accused confessed before them that he had committed murder of deceased Sudha and when inquiry was made by the Police about dead body, he informed them that he had thrown the dead body in a well called Vinantale and that he would show them the well. When they reached the well, the accused informed them that the dead body was thrown in the said well. Thereafter, Police brought one bamboo stick and took search in the well with the help of bamboo and the dead body of Sudha came up floating after the water was stirred by the bamboo. The dead body of Sudha was identified. Some injuries were also seen. According to P.W.1, panchanama was drawn and the dead body was then taken to Pune. He identified the broken pieces of bangles and slipper and also the plastic Can which deceased Sudha had taken alongwith her, the cloth bag (Article 15) which she had taken alongwith her and also the cotton bag (Article 10). He also identified Article-1 as Mangalsutra of deceased Sudha. He identified the broken pieces of bangles and slipper and also the plastic Can which deceased Sudha had taken alongwith her, the cloth bag (Article 15) which she had taken alongwith her and also the cotton bag (Article 10). He also identified Article-1 as Mangalsutra of deceased Sudha. It has to be noted here that the version given by P.W.1 regarding version by the accused and the discovery of dead body at the instance of the accused and also of drawing up of the panchanama is different from the version given by other witnesses and also the version given by the Investigating Officer and other Police Officers who were examined by the prosecution. In the cross-examination, he admitted that he and the husband of the deceased were residing separately for four years, though he was residing in the same house. A suggestion was made to him that the relations between Sudha and her husband were strained and that his brother Arjun was residing with another woman at Bombay and, therefore, Sudha was residing in village. A suggestion was also made that his relations with the accused were not cordeal and that they had boycotted the accused. P.W. 2 – Santosh Bagale has stated that he used to sell milk in the village and on 7/11/1988, while he was passing through Redegali at 3.30 P.M., he noticed deceased Sudha purchasing at the Ration Shop. After he had delivered milk in the house of one Mr. Dalvi, while returning back at 4.30 P.M., he saw the appellant/accused hiding behind the bush on the way of Redegali. He has stated that, on the next day, he informed one Daji Gawade and Ankush Gawade that while he was returning from Dalvi’s house after delivering milk to him, he noticed that the accused was trying to hide behind the bush at Redegali. In the cross-examination, a suggestion was made to him that there were number of cases pending in the Kudal Court between his father and father of the accused. He admitted that the accused was his cousin and he was staying in the adjoining house. P.W. 3 - Nakul Dewoo Dicholkar has stated that he was called by the Police at Kudal Police Station on 8/11/1988 for panchanama. He has stated that the Police took personal search of the accused in his presence and found one packet in his pants’ pocket. P.W. 3 - Nakul Dewoo Dicholkar has stated that he was called by the Police at Kudal Police Station on 8/11/1988 for panchanama. He has stated that the Police took personal search of the accused in his presence and found one packet in his pants’ pocket. The said packet was containing golden Mangalsutra. The goldsmith was called who weighed the Mangalsutra and found that it was of 38 Gms and 900 Ml.grms. He further stated that the accused took out currency notes from the left pocket of his pants and the currency notes were of Rs 67/-. The shirt and pants were also seized by the police and he (P.W.3) put his signature on the panchanama. The name of other panch was Pingulkar who also put his signature on the panchanama. P.W.3 also stated that they noticed buttons of the shirt of the accused was untied and there were blood stains near button Nos. 2 and 3 of the said shirt. P.W. 4 – Harishchandra Dattaram Kharode, who was called as a panch, had prepared the spot panchanama and the inquest panchanama at Exhibits-17 and 18. This witness has stated that he was called by the Police on 8/11/1988 at Redegali and he found pieces of green bangles lying there. The Police had shown the place and that the accused also showed the place. He has stated that they found one slipper and that it was of left leg and then they found another slipper of right leg. He has stated that the accused explained that the earth there was disturbed because he had dragged Sudha from that place to the well, known as Vinantale. They noticed dragging marks on the earth upto the said well. The pair of slippers was seized. The pieces of bangles were also seized and kept in the packet (Article-9). According to him, after the spot panchanama, one more panchanama near the well was drawn. According to him, there was a dead body of Sudha in the well and panchanama of the dead body was also drawn. He noticed some injury marks on the dead body. Some abrasions were noticed above the eye-brows and the abrasions were also noticed at her lips. He also noticed abrasions to both the elbows of the dead body and some injury like abrasions to the waist and also at the bottom of the ankles. He noticed some injury marks on the dead body. Some abrasions were noticed above the eye-brows and the abrasions were also noticed at her lips. He also noticed abrasions to both the elbows of the dead body and some injury like abrasions to the waist and also at the bottom of the ankles. He noticed that there was red colour peti-coat and green colour blouse on the dead body. The inquest panchanama was signed by him as also by one lady panch by name Saraswati and that there was also another panch by name Shantaram. In the cross-examination P.W.4 has stated that number of persons had assembled near the well before their arrival and the dead body was in the well water. He has stated that no separate panchanama was drawn to show that the body was in the well water. He has further stated that the panchanama was drawn after taking out the dead body out of the well water and, thereafter, the dead body was kept at a distance of 1 feet away from the well. P.W. 5 – Mangesh Fatu Gawade is also a panch witness. He was examined to prove the panchanama of seizure of clothes of the deceased which is at Exhibit-20. P.W. 6 – Ankush Daji Gawade is another witness, who has stated that the deceased Sudha was daughter of his sister. He has stated that on 7/11/1988, the deceased had come to his house at about 5.00 P.M. after purchasing ration from rationing shop. She had stayed there for about half an hour and left his house at about 5.30 P.M. He has stated that she was wearing Mangalsutra and earrings and that she was wearing sky coloured saree and black blouse and green coloured bangles and was having ration bag, one jute bag and one white Can containing oil. He identified the articles which were shown to him. He has stated that at about 7.30 P.M. to 8.00 P.M. Rajan Puralkar and two to three persons arrived at his house and inquired about Sudha and he informed them that she had left his house at about 5.30 P.M. He, therefore, alongwith others went in search of Sudha and since there was no trace of Sudha, P.W.1 Govind, Rajan and Daji Gawade went to Police Station for lodging the missing complaint. He has stated that, on the next day, when he had gone in search of Sudha alongwith P.W.1 and one Uday, they found green coloured broken pieces of bangles near Redegali and also found pair of slippers there. According to him, he suspected some foul-play and, at that time, Police arrived there since the complaint was already given to the police. According to him, Police already had received the information that one person was hiding himself besides the bushes near Redegali and the Police, therefore, went alongwith Rajan to search the person who was present there and who was known to Rajan Gawade, his son and Daji Gawade and after some time Police returned with the accused who confessed before them that he had committed murder of deceased Sudha for money and then he had showed the place where the dead body was thrown. According to him, Police brought one bamboo stick which was given in the hand of the accused. The accused then stirred the well water and Police thereafter took the bamboo stick in his hand and stirred it and the dead body came up which was recognized by the witness. In the cross-examination, he admitted that the husband of Sudha was working at Bombay and that there might be some dispute between her and her husband. P.W. 7 – Daji Anant Gawade has stated that, he returned home at 9.00 P.M. on 7/11/1988 and he, alongwith P.W. 1- Govind, son of Govind Rajan Puralkar, his uncle Ankush (P.W.6) went in search of Sudha who was missing since evening and, on the next day, near Redegali, they found pair of slippers and broken pieces of bangles. According to him, he went to P.W. 2 – Santosh Bagale to make inquiry about Sudha and he informed him that he had seen the accused hiding behind the bush at Redegali and that he had seen him at about 5.30 P.M. According to him, he gain went to Redegali and, at that time, Police Jeep arrived there and he informed the Police that P.W.2 – Santosh had informed him about presence of the accused on the previous evening and, therefore, he alongwith his brother Rajan and Police went to search the accused. They found the accused while he was proceeding to Kamler and the Police apprehended him. They found the accused while he was proceeding to Kamler and the Police apprehended him. According to him, Police asked the accused to show his belongings and, at that time, accused took out one bag in which there was golden Mangalsutra and also cash of Rs 67 from his pocket. He also stated that the accused confessed that he had committed murder of Sudha and had taken out her Mangalsutra. He stated that the Police made inquiry with the accused as to what he had done on that day in his presence and the accused replied that he had seen Sudha going to bring ration and, therefore he hided himself behind the bushes and after she arrived, he apprehended her and committed her murder and had taken her Mangalsutra and cash of Rs 67 and dragged the dead body of Sudha and had thrown it in the well at Vinantale. Thereafter, the accused was given a bamboo stick who put it in well water and stirred it and the dead body came up. He identified the dead body and found injury marks on the dead body. The injury marks were on the head and to the anklet. In the cross-examination, he admitted that no memorandum of statement of the accused was drawn nor was panchanama of the personal search of the accused was drawn there. He also admitted that Police had not mentioned in his statement that he had informed the police that the accused had stated before them that he had hidden himself behind the bushes. The said omission was accordingly brought on record. Similarly, omissions about the Mangalsutra and earrings not to be found on the body were also noted. P.W. 8 – Shankar Gangaram Sawant is a panch witness in respect of recovery of articles purchased by deceased Sudha at the instance of the accused which he had concealed near the place of offence. He has stated that he was called by the Police on 9/11/1988 at Police Station Kudal and the accused made a statement before the panch witness that he was ready to point out articles which were concealed by him. The memorandum of statement of accused was brought on record at Exhibit-26. He has stated that he was called by the Police on 9/11/1988 at Police Station Kudal and the accused made a statement before the panch witness that he was ready to point out articles which were concealed by him. The memorandum of statement of accused was brought on record at Exhibit-26. According to him, the accused took out one cloth bag full of grain and then he took out one gunny bag made of jute and he also took out one white coloured plastic Can of two litre capacity and one bag containing 2 kilograms sugar. He also took out one purse and that he also took out one ration card from there. A panchanama was prepared and it was brought on record at Exhibit-27. P.W. 9 –Subhash Trimbak Kulkarni is the Medical Officer who performed postmortem of the dead body. He has given external injuries which were found on the dead body and stated that there was no possibility of death by drowning and the cause of death was due to shock by fracture of the skull bone. He has also stated that he took the blood sample of the dead body and it was sealed and the phial was handed over to the Police. The blood sample of Shivaji Bagale was taken on 16/11/1988 and it was referred for chemical analysis. P.W.10 – Balkrishna Narayan Manjrekar is the panch witness and he was examined to prove the recovery of saree at the instance of the accused. He has stated that the Police called him to the Police Station on 10/11/1988 and the accused mentioned that after throwing the dead body in the well, he came back to the spot where her saree was left and then he took the saree and threw it in the well of Gundu Nagvekar. He has proved the memorandum of statement of the accused and it was brought on record at Exhibit-31. The accused recovered the saree from the said well which is marked as Article-20. P.W. 11 -Vijay Vasudeo Masurkar has stated that the deceased Sudha was his mother’s sister. He has stated regarding the inquiry made by P.W. 7 – Daji Gawade, P.W. 1 – Govind Puralkar and his son Rajan Puralkar at about 11 P.M. on 7/11/1088 about disappearance of Sudha after she had purchased ration at the fair-price shop. P.W. 11 -Vijay Vasudeo Masurkar has stated that the deceased Sudha was his mother’s sister. He has stated regarding the inquiry made by P.W. 7 – Daji Gawade, P.W. 1 – Govind Puralkar and his son Rajan Puralkar at about 11 P.M. on 7/11/1088 about disappearance of Sudha after she had purchased ration at the fair-price shop. He has further stated that, on the next day, in the morning, they went in a tempo to village Bambarde alongwith P.W. 7 – Daji Gawade, P.W. 1 – Govind Puralkar and his son Rajan Puralkar and Satyawan Gawade, the maternal uncle of P.W.11. He has stated that that at about 9.00 A.M., they noticed some pieces of green bangles on the way of Redegali and they also found pare of slippers. He has stated that after some time Police came there and P.W. 7 also reached there, who informed the Police that he had learnt from P.W. 2 that the accused was hiding his presence at the same spot on the previous day at about 5.00 to 5.30 P.M. He has then stated that the Police thereafter went to search the accused alongwith P.W. 7 – Daji Gawade and Rajan Gawade and the said two witnesses came back at 12 noon alongwith the accused. He has stated that the Police made inquiry with the accused and the accused confessed in their presence that he had beaten Sudha and then killed her and the accused, thereafter, led all of them and the Police towards the well and the dead body of Sudha was removed with the help of bamboo stick. He has stated that the Police drew the panchanama of dead body. P.W. 12 – Rajan Govind Puralkar, who is the son of P.W.1, has also narrated the story regarding disappearance of Sudha after she had purchased articles from the fair-price shop. He has corroborated the statement of other witnesses in respect of missing report in the Police Station. He has stated that on the next day morning, his father and Satyawan went to Redegali and he followed them after some time and his father showed him the broken pieces of bangles and pair of slippers at Redegali. He has corroborated the statement of other witnesses in respect of missing report in the Police Station. He has stated that on the next day morning, his father and Satyawan went to Redegali and he followed them after some time and his father showed him the broken pieces of bangles and pair of slippers at Redegali. He has narrated the incidence of the accused being brought to the spot and the confession made by him and the removal of the dead body from the well by the accused and the panchanama being drawn by the Police. P.W. 13 - Malini Bhiva Puralkar is the sister of the husband of deceased Sudha. She has stated that she was residing with deceased Sudha and she has narrated the incident which took place on 7/11/1988 till disappearance of Sudha and the dead body of deceased being subsequently recovered at the instance of the accused. She identified the saree and the Can and the cloth bag as well as muddemal slippers and the purse as also the blouse which Sudha was wearing. P.W. 14 - Narayan Kaka Dabholkar has stated that the accused was apprehended in his presence when they were sitting under the Pimpal tree. He has stated that when he and Prabhakar Dicholkar, Uttam Koregaonkar and the accused were sitting under the tree, Police came there and they took search of the accused and one Mangalsutra was found in the pocket of the accused. According to him, Police asked the accused as to whom the Mangalsutra belonged to. However, according to him, the accused did not give any answer. He has stated that he could not identify whether the Mangalsutra which was now shown to him was the same which was found in the pocket of the accused. He does not state that any panchanama was made at that time or that the accused had confessed that he would show the dead body of the deceased or that he had committed murder of Sudha. P.W. 15 – Sadashiv Vithal Prabhu is the owner of the fair-price shop. He does not state that any panchanama was made at that time or that the accused had confessed that he would show the dead body of the deceased or that he had committed murder of Sudha. P.W. 15 – Sadashiv Vithal Prabhu is the owner of the fair-price shop. He has admitted that on the date of the incident i.e on 7/11/1988 deceased Sudha had been to his ration shop and he had sold her food grain and that she had also purchased 4 gunny bags, besides ration from his shop and that she left at about 4.45 P.M. He identified the gunny bags at Article 16 which were purchased from him and also the plastic Can. P.W. 16 – Prabhakar Atmaram Dicholkar has also deposed about the apprehension of the accused by the Police. He has stated that the accused was standing under the Pimpal tree and upon inquiry being made by the Police about the accused, he had pointed out the accused to the Police. He has stated that the Police took personal search of the accused in his presence and he alone was present at that time since rest of the persons already left from Pimpal tree. He then stated that the personal search of the accused was taken in his presence and in the presence of Daji Gawade and Rajan Gawade who had accompanied the Police and one Mangalsutra was found in the rear pocket of the accused and the sum of Rs 67/- was found in the pocket of his shirt. He has stated that when the Police inquired about Mangalsutra, the accused was reluctant to state anything about 5 to 10 minutes and when Police gave 2 to 3 blows to the accused the accused confessed that the Mangalsutra belonged to deceased Sudha. He has stated that the Police obtained his signature on the panchanama and that the panchanama was scribed by the Police near the Pimpal tree. Surprisingly, the panchanama had not been brought on record by this witness. In the cross-examination, he has stated that the Police had given blows to the accused with sticks. P.W. 17 -Abhimanu Arjun Kadam, the Assistant P.S.I., was attached to Kudal Police Station on 7/11/1988. He has stated that on 7/11/1988, P.W. 1 – Govind Puralkar lodged a missing report. Surprisingly, the panchanama had not been brought on record by this witness. In the cross-examination, he has stated that the Police had given blows to the accused with sticks. P.W. 17 -Abhimanu Arjun Kadam, the Assistant P.S.I., was attached to Kudal Police Station on 7/11/1988. He has stated that on 7/11/1988, P.W. 1 – Govind Puralkar lodged a missing report. He has stated that on 8/11/1988 at about 10.00 A.M., he alongwith P.S.I. Pardeshi, P.S.I. Panchal, Police Constable Sawant and P.C. Kadam proceeded in search of Sudha. They, however, noticed some broken pieces of gunny bags and ration articles besides bushes and they also saw pair of slippers there. He has stated that the P.S.I gave an order to make further inquiry and, therefore, he, alongwith the Head Constable Panchal, P.C. Sawant, P.C. Kadam, Daji Gawade and Rajan Dicholkar, went to Bagalewadi and while they were going there, P.W. 7 – Daji Gawade told him that he had learnt from P.W. 2 – Santosh that the accused was present at Redegali. Thereafter, they proceeded to Pimpal tree near Zarap. The accused was apprehended by them and they found one golden Mangalsutra in the pocket of the accused and a sum of Rs 67 in the pocket of his pants and the accused confessed that he has committed murder of Sudha and he showed them the well where he had thrown the dead body and the dead body was recovered and the Police drew the inquest panchanama. He has admitted in his cross-examination that the panchanama was not drawn at the time when the personal search of the accused was taken. P.W. 18– Prakash Vithal Rasam has stated that he was attached to Kudal Police Station and working as Police Constable. He met the Medical Officer alongwith the accused with a letter for taking his blood sample. He also carried the blood sample of Sudha and accused alongwith the clothes to the Chemical Analyser. P.W. 19 – Kashiram Bhiwa Puralkar has stated that the deceased was his brother’s wife and he has narrated about the earlier incident of disappearance of the deceased and on the following morning discovery of pieces of bangles and pair of slippers. He also carried the blood sample of Sudha and accused alongwith the clothes to the Chemical Analyser. P.W. 19 – Kashiram Bhiwa Puralkar has stated that the deceased was his brother’s wife and he has narrated about the earlier incident of disappearance of the deceased and on the following morning discovery of pieces of bangles and pair of slippers. He has stated that the Police arrived at the place and, thereafter, the Police alongwith P.W.7 – Daji Gawade and Rajan Dicholkar went in search of the accused and they came back at 12 noon alongwith the accused. He has stated that the Police made inquiry with the accused and the accused agreed to show them the place where he had thrown the dead body. He has stated that the panchanama of the dead body was drawn. P.W. 20 – Liyakat Ali Shaikh Ismail Pardeshi is the Investigating Officer. He was attached to Kudal Police Station and was working as P.S.I. He has stated that missing report of Sudha was lodged by P.W.1 and, on the next day, he has stated that he took the matter in his hands for further inquiry and went to Redegali alongwith his staff for inquiry and while he was passing through that place, he noticed pieces of bangles and pair of slippers. He learnt from P.W. 7 – Daji Gawade that P.W.2 – Santosh had told him that he had seen the accused at Redegali on the previous evening. Therefore, he sent his staff to search the accused and he learnt from his staff at 11.00 A.M that the accused was having Mangalsutra and cash of Rs 67/-. At that time, he was convinced that the deceased must have been murdered. Thereafter, the accused and Police came there. He made inquiries and the accused confessed before him and others that he had committed murder of deceased Sudha and agreed to show the place where the dead body was thrown. He has stated that the dead body was kept besides the well and, thereafter, FIR was registered at about 1.45 P.M and the accused was arrested between 2.00 to 2.30 P.M and the cash of Rs 67/-, muddemal Mangalsutra, the shirt and pants were seized under the seizure panchanama. He has then stated that, thereafter, inquest panchanama was drawn and also the panchanama of the scene of offence. The statements of witnesses were also recorded. He has then stated that, thereafter, inquest panchanama was drawn and also the panchanama of the scene of offence. The statements of witnesses were also recorded. On 9/11/1988, accused made a statement that he would show the articles which he had concealed under the tree and the statement was reduced in writing and then the said articles were recovered at the instance of the accused. Then, on the next day i.e on 10/11/1988, when the accused was in police custody, he also disclosed that he would show the place where he had thrown the saree and the saree was recovered from the well. Memorandum of the statement of the accused was prepared. Thereafter, blood sample and the blood stained clothes were sent to Chemical Analyser and the report was brought on record. In the cross-examination, P.W.20 admitted that no separate panchanama was drawn about statement of confession of the accused. He also admitted that there was no reference in the FIR as to who had taken up the dead body from the well. He also agreed that, at that time, no panchanama was drawn. He further states that personal search of the accused was taken on 8/11/1988 at Kudal Police Station and the panchanama was drawn there and some Police Constable had called P.W. 3 – Nakul to act as panch. The contradictions in the statements of witnesses were shown to him and were proved and were brought on record. He admitted that on 16/11/1988, the accused was produced before J.M.F.C., Malvan for Police Custody and the complaint of ill-treatment was made by him. He denied the suggestion that 10 policemen had beaten the accused by sticks and that the accused was also beaten by belt. He also denied that he used to beat the accused daily. 15. From the evidence which has come on record, it has to be seen whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving each circumstance and more particularly the circumstance regarding discovery of the spot where bangles and slippers were found; arrest of the accused; seizure of Mangalsutra and Rs 67/- from his pants and shirt pocket respectively; his confession that he had murdered deceased Sudha, which was made in the presence of Police and other witnesses; discovery of the dead body at his instance and recovery of saree and the rationing articles at his instance. 16. 16. So far as the incident which had taken place on 7/11/1988 is concerned, the prosecution has established by examining P.W.1- Govind Puralkar, P.W.6-Ankush Gawade, P.W.7-Daji Gawade, P.W. 11-Vijay Masurkar, P.W.12-Rajan Puralkar, P.W.13-Malini Puralkar, P.W.15-Sadashiv Prabhu and P.W.19-Kashiram Puralkar that the deceased Sudha left her house in the evening at about 3.30 P.M. for purchasing food grains and other articles at the ration shop. She purchased those articles and, thereafter, went to her maternal uncle’s place and, thereafter, did not return home and, therefore, a search party was organized and they tried to search her at various places and, on their failure to find her, a missing report was lodged. It is also brought on record that when she left the house, she was wearing slippers, sky coloured saree and that she was also wearing Mangalsutra and earrings. 17. So far as the second circumstance is concerned viz. discovery of spot where the alleged scuffle had taken place and her broken bangles were found, two versions have been given by the witnesses and these versions are contrary versions and, therefore, it is difficult to accept the prosecution case as to who discovered the spot where the alleged incident had taken place. According to P.W.1-Govind Puralkar, he, alongwith P.W.6-Ankush Gawade, P.W.11-Daji Gawade and P.W. 19Kashiram Puralkar found broken pieces of bangles and slippers of Sudha at a particular spot and then P.W. 19 – Kashiram was sent to the Police Station to inform them about the clue and, after some time, Police arrived there. P.W. 7 – Daji Gawade arrived there and informed the Police that the appellant was seen at that place on the previous evening. On the other hand, P.W. 6 – Ankush Gawade deposes that he and P.W. 1 – Govind Puralkar and P.W. 11 – Uday (Vijay) noticed the said spot. He states that the Police arrived there and they had already received an information that one person was present on the earlier day and he was hiding himself behind the bushes. This witness does not mention the presence of P.W.19- Kashiram or P.W.7-Daji Gawade. He states that the Police arrived there and they had already received an information that one person was present on the earlier day and he was hiding himself behind the bushes. This witness does not mention the presence of P.W.19- Kashiram or P.W.7-Daji Gawade. Similarly, P.W. 7-Daji Gawade in his evidence has stated that P.W.1-Govind, P.W.6-Ankush and P.W.11- Vijay were present and he was informed about the bangle pieces and pair of slippers by P.W.1 and P.W.11 and, thereafter, he went to P.W.2 – Santosh Bagale and that P.W. 2 informed him that he had seen the appellant hiding himself behind the bushes at Redegali. Again, he does not mention the presence of P.W.19 – Kashiram. Most important fact is that he does not mention as to what prompted him to go and meet P.W.2-Santosh to make inquiry about Sudha and to no one else. P.W.11 – Vijay Masurkar, on the other hand, does not depose about presence of P.W.19-Kashiram, who, according to P.W.1-Govind had called the Police at the spot. He also does not mention about the P.W. 7 – Daji Gawade going away and returning to the spot after gathering information about the appellant. P.W.12 – Rajan Puralkar also does not mention the presence of P.W. 19-Kashiram and also does not mention about P.W.7 – Daji Gawade going away and returning to the spot after some time. P.W. 19-Kashiram states that he had gone to Police Station but he states that the Police arrived at the place and they went in search of the accused alongwith P.W.7 – Daji Gawade and Rajan Dicholkar. A complete contradictory version has been given by two Police Officers viz. P.W. 17 Abhimanu Kadam and P.W.20 Liyakat Ali. P.W. 17 – Abhimanu Kadam is the Assistant Sub-Inspector who has stated that, he, alongwith other Police Officers, noticed the broken pieces of bangles and slippers and also gunny bag and rationing articles besides bushes. This witness does not mention the presence of P.W.1-Govind, P.W.6-Ankush and P.W.19-Kashiram. If version of this witness is to be accepted then the version of other witnesses will have to be discarded particularly their version that P.W. 7-Daji Gawade had gone to make inquiries with P.W.2-Santosh who informed him that the appellant, on the earlier day, was seen by him (P.W.2) while he was hiding behind the bushes. If version of this witness is to be accepted then the version of other witnesses will have to be discarded particularly their version that P.W. 7-Daji Gawade had gone to make inquiries with P.W.2-Santosh who informed him that the appellant, on the earlier day, was seen by him (P.W.2) while he was hiding behind the bushes. The Investigating Officer P.W. 20 – Liyakat Ali, on the contrary, states that he took the matter in his hands for further inquiry on 8/11/1988 and went to Redegali alongwith his staff for inquiry and while he was passing through that place, he noticed pieces of bangles and pair of slippers and he learnt from P.W.7 – Daji Gawade that P.W. 2 – Santosh had told him about the presence of the accused on the earlier day. All these statements of these witnesses contradict each other as to who discovered the spot where the alleged incident had taken place. P.W. 17 - Abhimanu Kadam, the Assistant Sub-Inspector takes credit of discovery of the spot to himself. Similarly, Investigating Officer P.W. 20 - Liyakat Ali also takes credit of discovery of the spot to himself, whereas P.W. 1 – Govind Puralkar states that, he, alongwith P.W. 6 – Ankush, P.W. 11 – Vijay and P.W. 19 – Kashiram found that the spot and P.W. 7 – Daji Gawade came there thereafter. This evident, therefore creates a serious doubt as to who was responsible for finding the spot where broken bangles and slippers were found. This also creates doubt as to whether statement of P.W. 7 – Daji Gawade that he went and met P.W. 2 – Santosh Bagale and learnt about presence of the appellant at the place of incident is true or not. 18. The next most crucial circumstance is regarding the arrest of the appellant by the Police. According to the Prosecution, the Police, alongwith P.W.7 – Daji Gawade and P.W. 12 – Rajan went in search of the appellant. The witnesses examined by the Prosecution to prove the apprehension of the appellant are also not trustworthy. 18. The next most crucial circumstance is regarding the arrest of the appellant by the Police. According to the Prosecution, the Police, alongwith P.W.7 – Daji Gawade and P.W. 12 – Rajan went in search of the appellant. The witnesses examined by the Prosecution to prove the apprehension of the appellant are also not trustworthy. P.W. 14 – Narayan Dabholkar has stated that on 8/11/1988, he was near the Pimpal tree and, alongwith him, P.W. 16 – Prabhakar Dicholkar, one Uttam Korgaonkar and the appellant were also sitting under the said tree and, at that time, Police arrived there and took personal search of the appellant and one Mangalsutra was found in his pocket and after the appellant declined to tell whose Mangalsutra it was, the Police took him with them towards Ubhadanda. It has to be noted that this witness (P.W.14) admits that no panchanama was drawn when the search of the appellant was taken and that he has failed to identify muddemal Mangalsutra before the Court. On the other hand, P.W. 16 – Prabhakar Dicholkar gives a different version about arrest of the appellant by the Police. According to him, while he was waiting near the Pimpal tree, P.W. 7 – Daji Gawade, P.W. 12 – Rajan Puralkar alongwith Police arrived there and inquired with P.W. 16 whether he had seen the appellant and then P.W.16 showed the appellant to the Police and, thereafter, the appellant was apprehended. The Police took personal search of the appellant and found one Mangalsutra and a sum of Rs 67/- on his person. He has stated that the appellant was reluctant to tell the police as to whose Mangalsutra it was and then the Police gave 2 to 3 blows to the appellant and, thereafter, he admitted that the Mangalsutra was of deceased Sudha. According to this witness (P.W.16), a panchanama was prepared and he signed the panchanama and it was prepared by the Police near the Pimpal tree and it was read over to him and the contents were correct. This panchanama has not been brought on record. According to Investigating Officer P.W. 20 – Liyakat Ali, no such panchanama was prepared at that spot but, subsequently, the panchanama was prepared in the Police Station. This panchanama has not been brought on record. According to Investigating Officer P.W. 20 – Liyakat Ali, no such panchanama was prepared at that spot but, subsequently, the panchanama was prepared in the Police Station. This witness (P.W.16) in his cross-examination has stated that the Police had assaulted the appellant with sticks and, thereafter, the appellant confessed about the murder of Sudha and about disposal of her body by him in the well. He has also admitted that his relations with the appellant were strained. P.W. 17 - Abhimanu Kadam who is one of the Officers who apprehended the appellant gave a different version about his arrest. According to him, he, alongwith other police staff and P.W. 7 – Daji Gawade and P.W. 11 – Vijay Masurkar went to the house of the appellant where he was not found and then P.W. 7 – Daji Gawade told P.W.17 that the appellant was at the Pimpal tree and, therefore, they proceeded to go to the Pimpal tree. This is contrary to the statement of P.W. 7 – Daji Gawade since he does not claim to have informed him about the appellant’s presence at the Pimpal tree. The Investigating Officer (P.W. 20) gives completely different version. P.W. 20 – Liyakat Ali claims that he sent his staff to search for the appellant and learnt from his staff at about 11.00 A.M that the appellant was proceeding to Kambleweer and also learnt from the same staff that the appellant was holding Mangalsutra and cash of Rs 67/-and, at that time, according to P.W. 20, he suspected that the deceased must have been murdered and, according to him, when the inquiry was made by him, the appellant confessed that he had committed murder of Sudha and had thrown the deady body in the well of Raghunath Dicholkar. The said contrary evidence of these witnesses also creates doubt regarding recovery of Mantalsutra and cash of Rs 67/- from the accused/appellant. Firstly, no panchanama has been carried out at the time of apprehending the appellant and no care has been taken to ensure that when the search of the clothes of the accused was being taken, independent panchas were also present at that time. Firstly, no panchanama has been carried out at the time of apprehending the appellant and no care has been taken to ensure that when the search of the clothes of the accused was being taken, independent panchas were also present at that time. The Investigating Officer P.W. 20 – Liyakat Ali in his evidence has admitted that no panchanama was made at that place and that, subsequently, after the accused was brought to the police station, a separate panchanama was prepared. In his examiantion in chief, he (P.W.20) has stated that the FIR was registered at about 1.45 P.M. vide C.R. No.151/88 and, thereafter, the accused was arrested in between 2.00 and 2.30 P.M. and cash of Rs 67/-, muddemal Mangalsutra, shirt and pants were seized under seizure panchanama. It is obvious that a false panchanama at Exhibit-15 was prepared on 8/11/1988 between 2.00 P.M. & 2.30 P.M. when already the Police knew that the appellant was holding one Mangalsutra and cash of Rs 67/- at about 10.30 or 11.00 in the morning. Though section 51 of the Cr.P.C does not mention that it is necessary to prepare a panchanama in the presence of independent panchas when the search is taken, it is one of the requirements of law under section 51 that receipt has to be given to the accused. It has not come on record that any such receipt was given to the accused when he was searched. All these circumstances create doubt regarding seizure of muddemal Mangalsutra and cash of Rs 67/- from the accused. 19. So far as discovery of the dead body of deceased Sudha at the instance of the appellant is concerned, this is one of the most important circumstance which ought to have been established beyond the reasonable doubt by the prosecution. In the first place, P.W. 14 Narayan Dabholkar, P.W. 16 – Prabhakar Dicholkar, P.W. 17 – Abhimanu Kadam and P.W. 7 – Daji Gawade have stated that they apprehended the accused near the Pimpal tree and, therefore, the appellant confessed in the presence of the Police Officers that he had committed murder of Sudha and disposed of her body by throwing it in the well. According to prosecution, thereafter, the accused was taken alongwith others to the spot and there again, in the presence of other witnesses and the Police, he confessed about commission of the offence and expressed his willingness to show them the place where the body was kept. Since discovery of the dead body of deceased Sudha at the instance of the accused is one of the crucial circumstance, it was the duty of the Police to have prepared the memorandum panchanama, as the confession given by the accused to other witnesses in the presence of Police is directly hit by section 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act and the said extra judicial confession is, therefore, not admissible in evidence. That being the position, it was the duty of the prosecution to have kept two independent pahcnas ready, so that memorandum of the accused could have been recorded. It is a matter of record that no such panchanama or memorandum of his statement was prepared then or thereafter at any time. Discovery of the dead body of Sudha, therefore, at the instance of the accused becomes doubtful. 20. The spot panchanama was prepared in the presence of panchas and P.W. 4 -Harishchandra Kharode has stated that he was called by the Police on 8/11/1988 and he found pieces of green bangles lying there and he has also stated that the accused showed the slippers which were found at that place and the accused also showed how he had dragged Sudha from that place to the well known as Vinantale. He has stated that there was a dead body of deceased Sudha in the well and the panchanama of the dead body was also drawn. According to him, the panchanama was drawn after taking out the dead body out of the well. The time of the said panchanama is stated to be between 4.30 P.M. and 5.30 P.M., whereas the inquest panchanama in respect of the dead body of the deceased Sudha was prepared between 15 hours and 16 hours. This is directly contrary to the evidence of all the witnesses who have stated that the dead body was removed from the well in the morning. Under these circumstances, it is difficult to rely on the version of the Police regarding discovery of the dead body of deceased Sudha at the instance of the accused. This is directly contrary to the evidence of all the witnesses who have stated that the dead body was removed from the well in the morning. Under these circumstances, it is difficult to rely on the version of the Police regarding discovery of the dead body of deceased Sudha at the instance of the accused. Apart from that, it has come on record that accused was assaulted by the Police and it is a settled position in law that if it is established that discovery is made while the accused is under duress, such discovery cannot be relied upon. The Division Bench of this Court in Deoraj Deju Surana vs. State of Maharashtra II – 1996 (1) Crimes 486has held that recovery of weapons made while accused were hand cuffed and when there is no independent witness examined and when there is no mention of sealing, cannot be relied upon. The Division Bench in the said case has observed in its judgment in para 30 as under:- “30. It is unfortunate, that a gruesome double murder is going unpunished. But we cannot be swayed by the shocking and revolting nature of crime. What we have to see is whether the evidence adduced by the prosecution is cogent, truthful and unimpeachable. This unfortunately is not the case here. The result is that we are left with no other option but to acquit the five appellants, in the three connected criminal appeals, and reject the reference made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for confirmation of their death sentences.” In another Division Bench judgment of this Court in Shankar Raju Banglorkar vs. State of Goa1992 CRI.L.J. 3034, the Division Bench observed that the disclosure by the accused in Police Station while he was handcuffed was not admissible in view of Article 20 of the Constitution since the disclosure was held to be made under duress, pressure or threats given by the Police. The Division Bench in its judgment in the said case in para 8 has observed as under:- “8. The Division Bench in its judgment in the said case in para 8 has observed as under:- “8. It follows therefore that the contradictions pointed out by us in respect of evidence of the witnesses relied by the prosecution seems to justify the submission of Shri D’Souza that the said evidence is not conclusive and sufficient by itself to establish beyond doubt the fact of recovery of the drugs allegedly done by raiding party in the appellant’s house, consequent upon the disclosure made by the said appellant, under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. However, even assuming that the said disclosure might have been made by the appellant before the panchas from the evidence given by P.W.2 Mahabaleshwar that the appellant was handcuffed at the time he purportedly expressed his willingness to show the place where the charas had been kept in his house somehow substantiates the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that this disclosure was made under duress, pressure or threats given by the Police being therefore not admissible in law in terms of Article 20, Part III of the Constitution.” Under these circumstances, therefore, recovery which has been made when the accused was in the custody of Police and was assaulted in the presence of other witnesses becomes doubtful. No panchanama was made at the time when the discovery of the articles was made and, therefore, reliance cannot be placed on the said discovery of the dead body at the instance of the accused and the said evidence, therefore, is required to be discarded being hit by Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India as well as section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. 21. So far as the recovery of rationing articles belonging to Sudha at the instance of the appellant on 9/11/1988 is concerned, P.W. 17 – Abhimanu Kadam, ASI, in his examination-in-chief, has himself stated that the gunny bags and the rationing articles were found besides bushes on 8/11/1988. This being the position, the so-called recovery of the very same articles and gunny bags again on 9/11/1988 clearly shows that the said evidence was fabricated by the Police. 22. Then the next circumstance is recovery of saree belonging to Sudha at the instance of the appellant on 10/11/1988. This being the position, the so-called recovery of the very same articles and gunny bags again on 9/11/1988 clearly shows that the said evidence was fabricated by the Police. 22. Then the next circumstance is recovery of saree belonging to Sudha at the instance of the appellant on 10/11/1988. It is unbelievable that the accused would, while in the police custody, inform about the rationing articles being kept by him on 9/11/1988 and, thereafter, on the next day, would inform the Police about disposal of saree of the deceased on 10/11/1988, particularly when, according to prosecution, he had disclosed to the Police when he was apprehended near the Pimpal tree, the place where he has disposed of the dead body. There is no reason why he would then withheld the information about saree being thrown in the well. 23. The least that can be said from the material which is brought on record is that an attempt has been made by the prosecution witnesses to suppress the fact that relations between the deceased and her husband were strained. The Investigating Officer P.W.20 – Liyakat Ali has tried to create record about preparation of panchanama in respect of seizure of articles, though he was aware about presence of these articles on the person of the accused. Prosecution, therefore, in our view has miserably failed in establishing its case against the appellant beyond the reasonable doubt. 24. Apart from that, following inconsistencies have been found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses:- (i) There is discrepancy in the statement of witnesses regarding preparation of inquest panchanama after body was removed from the well at the instance of the accused. Some of the witnesses state that the panchanama was made. The Investigating Officer P.W.20 – Liyakat Ali, however, does not state that the panchanama was made when the dead body was removed by the accused. (ii) One of the Assistant Inspector of Police states that the accused showed Rationing Bag and other articles at the spot where bangles were found, whereas Investigating Officer (P.W.20) states that the said recovery was made after police remand and the panchanama was made and memorandum of the accused was signed. (iii) One of the witnesses P.W. 17 – Abhimanu Kadam, ASI also has stated that on the first day itself rationing articles were shown by the accused. (iii) One of the witnesses P.W. 17 – Abhimanu Kadam, ASI also has stated that on the first day itself rationing articles were shown by the accused. (iv) There is discrepancy in the statements of witnesses regarding arrival of the police. P.W.1 – Govind Puralkar has stated that they found broken bangles and the sleeper of the deceased at the site and sent Kashiram to the police and, thereafter, police arrived there. On the other hand, Kashiram (P.W.19) does not state that he had informed the police. He states that the police arrived at the place. P.W.20 – Liyakat Ali as also the other ASI P.W-17 – Abhimanu Kadam did not state that they were informed by Kashiram (P.W.19) and that on their own they stumbled across the broken bangles and pair of sleepers. The Investigating Officer and the ASI mentioned the name of P.W.1-Govind, P.W.3-Nakul, P.W. 4-Harishchandra and P.W.5-Mangesh Gawade etc. (v) The ASI states that Mangalsutra and Rs 67/-was found on the person of the accused. P.W. 20 – Investigating Officer states that he learnt from his staff that Mangalsutra and Rs 67 were found on the person of the accused and the panchanama was made in the police station. If recovery of Mangalsutra and Rs 67/- were made earlier during the day, there was no necessity of making separate panchanama thereafter in the police station. This creates serious doubt about recovery of Mangalsutra and Rs 67 from the accused. (vi) Most of the witnesses have stated that the accused confessed to the police and recovery of Mangalsutra and Rs 67/- was made near the pimpal tree. Some of the witnesses have admitted in the examination in chief that while making inquiry with the accused, police officers had assaulted him. One of the witnesses in cross examination has admitted that the accused was assaulted with stick. No arrest panchanama was prepared and the accused was apprehended near the pimpal tree while he was proceeding to Kamblewadi. Injuries were noticed on the person of the accused at the time of his arrest i.e. on his back and on his hands. Discovery of dead body at the instance of the accused, therefore becomes doubtful and the possibility of dead body being already found by the police cannot be ruled out. It has come on record that relationship between P.W.2 – Santosh Bagale and the accused were strained. Discovery of dead body at the instance of the accused, therefore becomes doubtful and the possibility of dead body being already found by the police cannot be ruled out. It has come on record that relationship between P.W.2 – Santosh Bagale and the accused were strained. (vii) Prosecution witnesses had tried to suppress the fact about relation between the deceased Sudha and her husband being strained and these contradictions have been brought on record by the defence. (viii) Since the testimony of most of the witnesses is hit by the provisions of section 25 of the Evidence Act, the only piece of evidence is recovery of dead body at the instance of the accused and the recovery of mangalstura and Rs 67/- from the person of the accused. Since there is a discrepancy as to whether the panchanama was made simultaneously at the time when dead body was found or it was drawn thereafter as is evident from statement of Investigating Officer himself, creates a serious doubt about discovery of dead body at the instance of the accused as also recovery of Mangalsutra. (ix) The recovery of saree at the instance of the accused had been made almost after accused was in police custody for two days. Secondly, one witness states that there was a sky coloured saree, whereas one witness states that it was a green coloured saree. The saree which is recovered is a sky coloured saree. It is therefore difficult to believe that immediately after the accused was arrested, he would disclose about the place where he had disposed of the dead body and disclosure of saree would be made after three days after police remand was taken and discovery of rationing articles were made after one day on the next day after police remand was taken. There is no reason why the accused would not disclose all these things on the very first day, whereas memorandum of panchanama has been made in respect of discovery of saree and the rationing articles. No such memorandum panchanama has been made regarding discovery of dead body and recovery of Mangalsutra and Rs 67/- from the pocket of the accused. Accused in his 313 statement has stated that the Mangalsutra belongs to his mother and has tried to give explanation regarding Mangalsutra which was found. No proper identification of Mangalsutra has been made. No such memorandum panchanama has been made regarding discovery of dead body and recovery of Mangalsutra and Rs 67/- from the pocket of the accused. Accused in his 313 statement has stated that the Mangalsutra belongs to his mother and has tried to give explanation regarding Mangalsutra which was found. No proper identification of Mangalsutra has been made. (x) There are several lapses in the investigation and different versions have been given by different witnesses on many crucial aspects. 25. It has to be remembered that the person summoned as witness during police investigation are called panchas. The panchanama is merely a record of what panchas see. The only use to which it can properly be put is that where the panch goes into the witness box and swears to what he saw and the panchanama can be used as contemporary record to refresh his memory (1940) 43 BLR 163). In the present case, no panchanama has been prepared when the dead body was recovered and the spot panchanama appears to have been prepared subsequently, though attempt has been made to show as if the said panchanama was made when the dead body was removed from the well. This creates serious doubt about recovery of the dead body. 26. Whenever any search is made at the behest of the Investigating Officer and something is found on the person of the accused, seizure memo has to be prepared immediately. If the seizure memo is prepared subsequently as it has happened in the present case, such evidence does not inspire confidence and the possibility of tampering in such cases cannot be ruled out. 27. The conviction cannot be based solely on the recovery of the dead body at the instance of the accused as held by the Apex Court in Anant Bhujangrao Kulkarni vs State of Maharahstra AIR 1993 SC 110 From the tenor of the evidence adduced by the prosecution it can well be seen that there has been deliberate venture and an attempt of the witnesses to favour the prosecution and it becomes clear that witnesses did not come out with the truth and tried to suppress the material facts to deflect the court of justice for reasons best known to them. There is a long distance to be travelled between the expression “may be” and “must be”. There is a long distance to be travelled between the expression “may be” and “must be”. However, strong emotional considerations may be, but the same cannot take place of proof. 28. In dealing with circumstantial evidence, the rules specially applicable to such evidence must be borne in mind. In such cases there is always danger that conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof and, therefore, one has to remind oneself about the warning addressed by Baron Alderson to the jury in Reg vs. Hodge(1838) 2 Lew, 227where he states that “The mind was apt to take a pleasure in adapting circumstances to one another, and even in straining them a little, if need be, to force them to form parts of one connected whole; and the more ingeniouses the mind of the individual, the more likely was it, considering such matters, to overreach and misled itself, to supply some little link that wanting to take for granted some fact inconsistent with its previous theories and necessary to render them complete.” Similarly, the Apex Court in Padala Veera Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others AIR 1990 SC 79 has observed in paras 19, 20, 21 and 22 as under:- “19 There are series of decisions holding that no one can be convicted on the basis of mere suspicion, however, strong it may be. Though we feel it is not necessary to re-capitulate a 11 those decisions we will refer to a few on this point.” “20. This Court in Palvinder Kaur v. The State of Punjab MANU/SC/0038/1952 : 1953 CriLJ 154 has pointed out that in cases dening on circumstantial evidence courts should safeguard themselves against the danger of basing their conclusions on suspicions how so ever strong.” “21. In Chandrakant Ganpat Sovitkar and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra MANU/SC/0117/1974 : 1974 CriLJ 1044, it has been observed: It is well settled that no one can be convicted on the basis of mere suspicion, though strong it may be. It also cannot be disputed that when we take into account the conduct of an accused, his conduct must be looked at in its entirety.” “22. v. State of Maharashtra MANU/SC/0117/1974 : 1974 CriLJ 1044, it has been observed: It is well settled that no one can be convicted on the basis of mere suspicion, though strong it may be. It also cannot be disputed that when we take into account the conduct of an accused, his conduct must be looked at in its entirety.” “22. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra MANU/SC/0111/1984 : 1984 CriLJ 1738, this Court has reiterated the above dictum and pointed out that the suspicion, however, great it may be, cannot take the place of legal proof and that “fouler the crime higher the proof”. 29. We are of the firm view that the circumstances appearing in this case, when examined in the light of the principles enunciated by the Apex Court, do not lead to any decisive conclusion that the appellant has committed murder of deceased Sudha. Hence, finding given by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sawantwadi cannot be sustained. The appellant, therefore, will have to be acquitted. 30. In the result, following order is passed:- ORDER Appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sawantwadi is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the offences with which he was charged. Appellant is on bail. His bail bonds, stand cancelled.