Judgment :- A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 5.8.2008, passed by the Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharkawda (Kelapur)in Session Trial No.2/2004, convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- each, in default of payment of fine to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and further convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 201 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- each, in default of payment of fine to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year, the present criminal appeals have been filed by both the accused persons. 2. In support of the criminal appeals, learned Counsel for the appellants in both appeals made the following submissions. (a) Admittedly, the case at hand is not based on any direct evidence, but it is only based on theory of last seen and extra judicial confession. (b) The evidence of extra judicial confession by itself is a weak piece of evidence as held by the Apex Court and cannot form basis of conviction as it is. (c) The theory of last seen cannot be extended to impermissible extent and in the instant case after the alleged last seen of accused with the deceased the dead body was found after a long gap of three to four days which was beyond identification. (d) None identified the dead body that was found and sent for post mortem by the police machinery. (e) Neither the evidence of last seen nor the one of extra judicial confession is of any weight to base conviction thereupon and on the contrary, it was wholly risky to do so and thus the trial Court erred in convicting the appellants. (f) The trial Court ignored the material omissions amounting to contradictions, which shake the testimony of witnesses and also one to the extent of accepting the evidence, which was not admissible in law. Finally, learned Counsel prayed for acquittal of the appellants in both appeals. 3. Learned A.P.P. for respondent in both appeals supported the impugned judgment and order and took us through the impugned judgment, stating that enough evidence was on record to convict the appellants. Finally, learned Counsel prayed for acquittal of the appellants in both appeals. 3. Learned A.P.P. for respondent in both appeals supported the impugned judgment and order and took us through the impugned judgment, stating that enough evidence was on record to convict the appellants. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of both the appeals. 4. We have gone through the evidence of all the witnesses before the trial Court carefully. We have also gone through the impugned judgment and order and having heard learned Counsel for the rival parties, we do find that it is the case where there is no direct evidence. The case is solely based on the last seen theory and the alleged extra judicial confession. Let us take the stock of the evidence of the witnesses. 5. P.W. 1 – Vitthal Waghuji Pawar the brother of the deceased Suvarna, with his father and mother went Tejapur and saw the dead body but he does not say that he identified the dead body as that of his sister nor anybody asked him to do so. The statement that he saw the dead body of Suvarna with stone tied to her body is an omission in the report as well as his statement, duly proved by the defence. We have gone through the inquest panchanama when his father was present, but the inquest panchanama nowhere refers to her father identifying the dead body and the name of this witness P.W. 1- Vitthal is not found anywhere in the inquest panchanama or spot panchanama. The Investigating Officer also does not claim that anybody identified the dead body nor any document has been placed on record to show that the said dead body was identified as the one of Suvarna by anybody. We, therefore, find that there was hardly any identification of dead body. We are aware that even in the absence of corpus delicti, the prosecution can prove its case and conviction can be recorded. 6. P.W.2 – Ramesh Maroti Nainwar is a neighbour so also his wife P.W. 8 – Chandrakala Ramesh Nainwar. Taking together the evidence of both these witnesses i.e. P.W. 2 – Ramesh and P.W. 8 – Chandrakala, we find that they stated that Suvarna and her husband Tukdyadas went towards Korpana side to worship the God as she was not conceiving. But that is an omission. Taking together the evidence of both these witnesses i.e. P.W. 2 – Ramesh and P.W. 8 – Chandrakala, we find that they stated that Suvarna and her husband Tukdyadas went towards Korpana side to worship the God as she was not conceiving. But that is an omission. P.W. 2 – Ramesh stated that Tukdyadas told him that there was mistake on his part when asked as to something must have been done by him to her. But then his reply that there was a mistake on his part cannot be said to be extra judicial confession that he committed her murder. 7. It is not in dispute that both P.W. 2 – Ramesh and P.W. 8 – Chandrakala were together when the alleged conversion took place. P.W.8 – Chandrakala, however, states that the appellant Tukdyadas stated that he committed mistake and killed his wife and threw it in the bed of river. But then the portion that 'he committed a mistake' is an omission and none lodged report to the Police Station immediately thereafter having come to know about this confession. Her evidence does not inspire confidence about the alleged extra judicial confession. P.W. 2 – Ramesh was not declared hostile, when he did not say about confession about murder to him. We have therefore a serious doubt about P.W.8 - Chandrakala hearing the extra judicial confession, when both, her husband and herself were together at the time when alleged extra judicial confession was made. Her evidence about last seen theory so also her husband P.W. 2 – Ramesh's that Suvarna and Tukdyadas told him that they were going to Tejapur to hospital and for worshiping the God is an omission. P.W. 2 – Ramesh does not say that accused and Suvarna told them about going to the hospital because she did not conceive. In our opinion, the evidence of P.W. 2 – Ramesh and P.W. 8 – Chandrakala being husband and wife and having allegedly heard the confession together at the same point of time, the appreciation will have to be made placing the evidence of both together. 8. The evidence of extra judicial confession of this witness P.W. 8 – Chandrakala is not satisfactory and we have serious doubt about the evidence of P.W. 8 – Chandrakala on that point. It is a fact that the dead body which was found after three days was beyond identification. 8. The evidence of extra judicial confession of this witness P.W. 8 – Chandrakala is not satisfactory and we have serious doubt about the evidence of P.W. 8 – Chandrakala on that point. It is a fact that the dead body which was found after three days was beyond identification. That apart, the theory of last seen cannot be applied in the instant case since the time gap is a long one and dead body was not identified and further there is no evidence of Suvarna being seen somewhere near the river with the appellants. 9. P.W. 7 – Dr. Ghanshyam Beluji Ramteke to whom both appellants had gone with one lady is absolutely of no use since he admitted in his cross-examination that it was not possible for him to identify any of the appellants after five years since they were never seen by him. 10. One more witness P.W. 5 – Surekha Vilas Nainwar was examined on the alleged extra judicial confession so also the last seen theory, but in the cross-examination she admitted that she heard from the discussion of the people that accused Tukdyadas had committed murder of Suvarna and no confessional statement was made to her. Similar is the case with last seen theory since i.e. an omission as to going out to worship the God for issue. 11. Therefore, we are not prepared to believe the last seen theory taking overall view of the prosecution evidence. For the reasons given by us for not believing the alleged extra judicial confession, we find that on both counts, the prosecution could not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The benefit of doubt must go to the accused persons appellants. In the result, we make the following order. ORDER (i) Criminal Appeal Nos.620/2008 and 295/2009 are allowed. (ii) The judgment and order dated 5.8.2008, passed by the Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharkawda (Kelapur)in Session Trial No.2/2004 is set aside. (iii) Appellants be set at liberty forthwith. (iv) Fine, if paid, be returned to the appellants.