JUDGMENT C.R. Sarma, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 23.08.2007, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Hojai, Sankardev Nagar in Sessions Case No. 265 (N)/2006. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant, under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, SI for 60 (sixty) days, We have heard Mr. S. Banik, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing for the appellant and Mr. D. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that, Shri Ghanu Das (hereinafter called 'appellant') married the sister (victim women) of the informant, namely, Sri. Anukul Ghosh, and they continued their marital life for about one year. 3. Since prior to 10 to 12 days of the date of filing the FIR, the where about of the victim women, i.e. wife of the appellant, was not known and thus, she became traceless. Subsequently, on being asked by the informant, the appellant admitted that he had killed his wife, inside the forest of the Diphu Lumding road, wherefrom the skeleton of the deceased was recovered, on being led by the appellant. The brother of the deceased, as informant (PW-1) lodged an FIR with the Police and the same was registered under Sections 302 /201 IPC. At the conclusion of the investigation, Police submitted charge-sheet under Section 302/201 I.P.C. against the appellant. 4. The offence being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Sessions Judge framed charges under Sections 302 /201 IPC, to which the appellant pleaded not guilty. In order to prove their case, prosecution examined as many as 9 (Nine) witnesses, including the informant (PW-1, the Medical Officer (PW-6) and the Investigating Officer (PW-9). At the close of the evidence for the prosecution, the accused person was examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C. He denied the allegations, brought against him and declined to adduce defence evidence. 5. Considering the evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge, convicted and sentenced the appellant, as indicated above. 6. Mr. At the close of the evidence for the prosecution, the accused person was examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C. He denied the allegations, brought against him and declined to adduce defence evidence. 5. Considering the evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge, convicted and sentenced the appellant, as indicated above. 6. Mr. S. Banik, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing for the appellant, referring to the evidence on record, has stated that there is no direct evidence against the appellant and that the learned Sessions Judge committed error by convicting the appellant only on basis of the statement, made by the appellant, before the Police. It is also submitted that the prosecution failed to establish the case beyond all reasonable doubt, by adducing cogent and reliable evidence, against the appellant and as such, the appellant is entitle to be acquitted and set at liberty. 7. Mr. D. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, referring to the circumstantial evidence, surfaced from the evidence, given by the prosecution witnesses, as well as the recovery of the skeleton and the 'saree' of the deceased from the place of occurrence, has submitted that the prosecution could establish that none, other than, the appellant, who is the husband of the deceased had caused her death. Therefore, it is submitted that the learned Sessions Judge committed no error by convicting and sentencing the appellant and that, the impugned conviction and the sentence do not warrant any interference. 8. Having heard the learned Counsel, appearing for both the parries and considering the evidence on record, we find that in the present case there is no direct evidence against the appellant. The prosecution has relied on the circumstantial evidence that though both the deceased and the appellant lived together, the said husband did not lodge any information with the Police or any other person regarding missing of his wife, that the appellant had lead the Police to the discovery of the skeleton as well as a "saree" of the deceased from the place, where he had caused the death of the deceased and left the deadbody. 9. In view of the above, it is found that the present case is solely based on circumstantial evidence. 9. In view of the above, it is found that the present case is solely based on circumstantial evidence. Law is well settled that, in order to base conviction, on the circumstantial evidence, it must be established that all the facts and circumstances form a complete chain of events leading to the irresistible conclusion, in consistent with the innocence of the accused, that none, other than the accused, had committed the offence. Therefore, we are required to examine if the circumstances revealed from the evidence, rendered by the prosecution, are sufficient to arrive at the conclusion that none, other than the appellant, had caused the death of the deceased. 10. Mr. Anukul Ghosh, brother of the deceased lodged the FIR. He, deposing as PW-1, stated that his sister, i.e. the deceased was missing from her house and that, the minor daughter of the deceased had informed the PW-1's mother that the appellant and the deceased went to the jungle. According to this witness, he visited the house of the appellant and, on being asked, the appellant confessed that he had killed the deceased. This witness, further, stated that the members of Club and the Police were informed and that, the appellant had led the Police to the place, where he had killed his sister. He further stated that some bones of skeleton of the deceased along with her "saree' were found, in the place to which the accused led the Police. 11. Mr. Argha Mitra, deposing as PW-2, stated that, on being asked by the members of Club, the appellant had admitted to have killed his wife. He, further, stated that the deceased had led the Police to the recovery of bones and 'saree' of the deceased. In his cross-examination, this witness stated that he did not see the dead body of the deceased and that, the Police had shown the skeleton and the cloth, seized from the place of occurrence. 12. Shri Tutul Chakraborty, deposing as PW-3, stated that the appellant admitted that he killed his wife. He did not accompany the Police to the place of recovery of the skeleton. This witness, in his cross-examination, further stated that the appellant gave contradictory statement by saying that he did not kill his wife. 13. 12. Shri Tutul Chakraborty, deposing as PW-3, stated that the appellant admitted that he killed his wife. He did not accompany the Police to the place of recovery of the skeleton. This witness, in his cross-examination, further stated that the appellant gave contradictory statement by saying that he did not kill his wife. 13. Shri Uttam Roy, deposing as PW-4, stated that the appellant led the Police to the place, where he had killed his wife and from where Police had recovered some bones and cloth of the deceased. According to this witness, the accused was in the custody of the Police and that handcuff was put. 14. Shri Debu Halda,(PW-5), stated that PW-1 informed him that the dead body of his sister was found and on being so informed, this witness along with others rushed to the place of occurrence. He further stated that he was standing on the road when the Police had taken the appellant to the place from where the skeleton was recovered. This witness stated that he did not know as to who had killed the deceased. He further stated that the skeleton was seized by Police. He has exhibited his signature on the seizure list as Exhibit-1(2). From the evidence of this witness, it is found that though he was also present at the time of recovery of the skeleton, he did not know as to who had killed the deceased. This indicates that the appellant did not confess his guilt in his presence. His ignorance about the culprit raises doubt as to whether the appellant had made any confession before the Police and others. 15. Sri. Bikram Paul, who was a member of the Club, deposing as PW-7 stated that the appellant on being assaulted by the brother of deceased along with others, had confessed that he had killed his wife near the river. He also stated that the appellant had led them to the place, where he had killed his wife. He further stated that though he did not proceed to the said place, he heard that Police had collected the bones and cloth. From the evidence of this witness, it is found that he was not present at the time of recovery of bones and cloths. What he stated was that the appellant, on being assaulted, had admitted his guilt. He further stated that though he did not proceed to the said place, he heard that Police had collected the bones and cloth. From the evidence of this witness, it is found that he was not present at the time of recovery of bones and cloths. What he stated was that the appellant, on being assaulted, had admitted his guilt. As this witness did not accompany the appellant and others to the place of recovery of the bones and 'saree', his evidence, regarding such recovery can not be accepted, for holding that the said skeleton and 'saree' were recovered on being led by the accused. That apart, it is found that the confession alleged to be made by the appellant, was extracted by applying force. 16. Therefore, it is found that the confession and the leading to discovery, made by the appellant was not voluntarily and he was forced to led the Police and others to the place, wherefrom the skeleton (bones) and the 'saree' were recovered. 17. That apart, from the above discussed evidence, it is found that the extra judicial confession, which was forcefully obtained from the appellant, was made before the Police. Therefore, the said extra judicial confession is hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act and as such, the same can not be accepted as legal evidence. 18. Sri. Mahendra Nath Saikia (PW-9), who, conducted the investigation into the matter, stated that Mr. Argha Mitra (PW-2) informed the Police that the appellant had confessed that he had killed his wife and kept the dead body inside the Lumding forest. According to the I.O., he visited the Club, where the appellant was detained and the appellant had admitted that he had left the dead body of his wife in the Lumding forest. According to this witness, the appellant had led them to the place of occurrence and on being so led, Police had recovered one 'saree' and a skeleton. He further stated that skeleton was sent Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. According to this witness, the seized 'saree' was identified by the informant, to be of his deceased sister. The I/O, in his cross-examination, admitted that some persons had assaulted the appellant in the Club. He also stated that he did not record the disclosure statement, made by the appellant. 19. Sri. According to this witness, the seized 'saree' was identified by the informant, to be of his deceased sister. The I/O, in his cross-examination, admitted that some persons had assaulted the appellant in the Club. He also stated that he did not record the disclosure statement, made by the appellant. 19. Sri. Dilip Kumar Baruah, SI of Police, deposing as PW-8, stated that, after receipt of the case diary, he had submitted the charge-sheet. 20. From the evidence of the I/O, it is found that, on being led by the accused, Police had recovered a 'saree' belonging to the deceased and a skeleton from the jungle. 21. The informant, deposing as PW-1, stated that the seized 'saree' belonged to his sister. Now, the question is whether the deceased was wearing the said 'saree' at the time of her death and if the bones and skeleton found in the jungle were of the deceased. The said bones were sent for forensic examination. 22. Sri. Puspa Kr. Baruah, Deputy Director, Biology Division, Forensic Science Laboratory, Guwahati, who examined the said bones, deposed as PW-6. He found the followings for examination:- (i) One complete skull without lower jaw and with decomposed fleshy deposit. The maxilla contains one tooth. Marked by him as Bio-922. (ii) One complete humerus with decomposed fleshy deposits. Marked by him as Bio-923. (iii) One complete radius with decomposed fleshy deposits. Marked by him as Bio-924. (iv) One complete ulna with decomposed fleshy deposits. Marked by him as Bio-925. (v) One complete right pelvic bone with decomposed fleshy deposits. Marked by him as Bio-926. (vi) 2 (two) nos. of complete ribs with decomposed fleshy deposits. Marked by him as Bio-927. (vii) 2 (two) nos. of complete femur with decomposed fleshy deposits. Marked by him as Bio-928. (viii) 2 (two) nos. of complete tibia with decomposed fleshy deposits. Marked by him as Bio-929. (ix) 2 (two) nos. of complete fibulae with decomposed fleshy deposits. Marked by him as Bio-930. (x) 2 (two) nos. of complete calcaneus with decomposed fleshy deposits. Marked by him as Bio-931. (xi) 2 (two) nos. of complete talus with decomposed fleshy deposits. Marked by him as Bio-932. (xii) 2 (two) nos. of complete patella with decomposed fleshy deposits. Marked by him as Bio-933. (xiii) Some piece of phalanges with decomposed fleshy deposits. Marked by him as Bio-934. of complete calcaneus with decomposed fleshy deposits. Marked by him as Bio-931. (xi) 2 (two) nos. of complete talus with decomposed fleshy deposits. Marked by him as Bio-932. (xii) 2 (two) nos. of complete patella with decomposed fleshy deposits. Marked by him as Bio-933. (xiii) Some piece of phalanges with decomposed fleshy deposits. Marked by him as Bio-934. After careful examination, he found the result as follows: (i) The skeletal of Exhibit No. Bio-922 to Bio 934 (marked by him) could be identified as human in origin and derived from one adult female individual. (ii) The age of the deceased at the time of death could be calculated out approximately 30 years. (iii) The stature of the individual is calculated as 150.35 cm. (iv) As a mark of identification of the deceased it may be mentioned that the deceased had lost her upper right 1st incisor tooth during life time. 23. Though the findings of the said witness indicate that the skeleton bones could be identified as human in origin and derived from one female adult individual, there is no substantive evidence to show that the said skeleton was the skeleton of the deceased. 24. No DNA examination or other scientific examination was made to ascertain that the said skeleton bones were of the deceased. 25. As discussed above, we have already found that the appellant was assaulted and thus, he was compelled to confess that he had thrown the dead body into the jungle, after killing his wife. 26. As the said admission or leading to discovery was not voluntarily, it is not safe to rely on such evidence and to take the confession as the basis of conviction. 27. There is no evidence to show that the seized 'saree' was used by the deceased at the time of her death. Therefore, finding of the 'saree' belonging to the deceased cannot lead to the conclusion that she was killed by the appellant. 28. Law is well settled that in a criminal trial, the prosecution is required to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and benefit of doubt should go in favour of the accused. 29. Considering the entire aspect of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the circumstantial evidence, revealed by the prosecution witnesses, do not lead to the irresistible conclusion that none, other than the appellant, had caused the death of his wife. 30. 29. Considering the entire aspect of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the circumstantial evidence, revealed by the prosecution witnesses, do not lead to the irresistible conclusion that none, other than the appellant, had caused the death of his wife. 30. In view of the above discussion, we are inclined to hold that the prosecution failed to establish the case beyond all reasonable doubt and as such, the conviction and the sentence can not be maintained. 31. We find sufficient merit in this appeal. The appeal is allowed. 32. Accordingly, the appellant is acquitted. He be set at liberty forthwith, if not required any other case. 33. We acknowledge the assistance rendered by Mr. S. Banik, learned Amicus Curiae and direct that an amount of Rs. 5,000/- be paid to him as remuneration, by the Assam State Legal Services Authority. Return the LCR. Appeal allowed