JUDGMENT Prashant Kumar, J. These appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.12.2002 passed by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka in Sessions Case no.19 of 2001, whereby and whereunder he convicted the appellants under section 302/34 of the I.P.C. and also under section 201 of the I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for live for the offence under section 302 of the I.P.C. and R.I. for five years for the offence under section 201 of the I.P.C. and ordered that both the sentences will run concurrently. 2. The case of prosecution in brief is that on 24.8.2000, informant P.W.1 heard a rumour that dead body of a lady is floating in Dhobijoriya (river). Accordingly, he went there and saw the dead body of a lady floating in the river. It is further stated that in the meanwhile, officer-in-charge of Ramgarh police station also arrived and he with the help of villagers took out headless dead body of a female from the river. Thereafter, they saw Tattoo, bearing name of "Surajmani Tudu", on the left hand of the dead body. It is stated that head of the deadbody was concealed somewhere else. Accordingly, informant and others suspected that lady was killed somewhere else and her headless dead body was thrown in the river whereas her head was kept somewhere else with an intention to conceal the evidence. 3. Accordingly, Ramgarh P.S.case no. 74 of 2000 under section 302/201 of the I.P.C. was instituted against unknown and police took up investigation. It appears that during investigation, police prepared inquest report of head-less dead body of the deceased ( Ext.5). It further appears that in course of investigation appellant Kirani Hembram was arrested and he confessed his guilty before Sub-Inspector of Police,namely, Baidyanath Singh . It further appears that head of the deceased was recovered from a well situated at a distance of 1 k.m. from village Pindari on the confession of Kirani Hembram and police prepared second inquest report (Ext.6). It further appears that after completing investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against the appellants under section 302 of the I.P.C. and also under section 201 of the I.P.C. 4. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and thereafter, committed the case to the Court of Session as the offence under section 302 of the I.P.C. is exclusively triable by a court of Sessions. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and thereafter, committed the case to the Court of Session as the offence under section 302 of the I.P.C. is exclusively triable by a court of Sessions. It appears that learned th Additional Sessions Judge vide his order dated 11.4.2001 framed and explained the charges against the appellants under section 302/34 of the I.P.C. and under section 201 of the I.P.C., to which appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, prosecution examined altogether nine witnesses in support of its case. Learned trial court had examined one witness as court witness, who has proved Ext.7, the confessional statement of appellant Kirani Hembram. The prosecution had also brought on record Ext.1, signature of informant, on the fardbeyan, Ext.2 series, signature of witnesses on the inquest reports, Ext.3, fardbeyan, Ext.4 formal F.I.R. and Ext.5 and 6 inquest reports. Ext. 7 confessional statement of appellant Kirani Hembram recorded by Sub-Inspector of Police, Baidyanath Singh. 5. After closure of the case of prosecution, statements of appellants recorded under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which their defence is of total denial. It appears that learned court below after considering the confessional statement of appellant Kirani Hembram, which according to it leading to recovery of head of deceased, convicted all the appellants under sections 201 and 302/34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced them as stated herein above by impugned judgment dated 21.12.2002. Against that judgment these appeals filed. 6. While assailing the impugned judgment, learned counsel for the appellants submits that there is absolutely no legal evidence against the appellants. He submitted that that learned court below convicted the appellants on the basis of confessional statement of one co-accused made before the police, which has no evidentiary value. He further submitted that there is no evidence on record to show that head of the deceased was recovered from the well on being pointed by appellant Kirani Hembram. He further submitted that even alleged confession has not been proved. He further submitted that even assuming, for the sake of argument, that head of deceased recovered on the basis of confession of appellant Kirani Hembram then also conviction of other two appellants not warranted, because confession of one co-accused, leading to recovery, cannot be used against other accused persons. He further submitted that even alleged confession has not been proved. He further submitted that even assuming, for the sake of argument, that head of deceased recovered on the basis of confession of appellant Kirani Hembram then also conviction of other two appellants not warranted, because confession of one co-accused, leading to recovery, cannot be used against other accused persons. Accordingly, he submitted that impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence cannot be sustained in these appeals. 7. Learned Addl. P.P. after going through the evidence available on record fairly stated that in the instant case, appellants were convicted merely on the confessional statement of one of the appellants namely, Kirani Hembram. 8. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, we have gone through the records of the case and carefully scrutinize the evidence available on record. 9. P.W.1 Shiv Mirdha is the informant of this case. He has not alleged anything against the appellants. P.W.2 Amir Lal Kunwar, P.W.3 Gajo Kunwar, P.W.4 Bhikhari Rai and P.W.5 Jina Raut were the witnesses of inquest and they have proved their signatures on the inquest reports which were marked as Ext.2 series. These witnesses only stated that in their presence, dead body of a head-less female recovered from Dhobia Joria. They further stated that they saw a tattoo, bearing name of "Surajmani Tudu", on the left hand of the dead body. They did not say anything regarding manner of occurrence. P.W.6 Sheo Ram Murmu has been declared hostile, as he has not supported the case of prosecution. P.W.7 Sukal Murmu only stated that deceased was earlier married to one Nikky Hembram, who divorced her. Thereafter, deceased started living with appellant-Manishwar, Kirani Hembram and Shailendra Murmu. He categorically stated that he had not seen the occurrence from his own eyes. Thus, his evidence also appears to be of no help to the prosecution . P.W.8 Nayki Hembram has also been declared hostile, as he has not supported the case of prosecution. P.W.9 Sukh Lal Waski is a formal witness, who has proved Exts. 3, 4, 5 and 6. He has snot stated anything regarding manner of occurrence. 10. Thus, from perusal of evidences of P.W.1 to 9, we find that their evidences throw no light on the case of prosecution, specially for proving the charges leveled against appellants. 11. P.W.9 Sukh Lal Waski is a formal witness, who has proved Exts. 3, 4, 5 and 6. He has snot stated anything regarding manner of occurrence. 10. Thus, from perusal of evidences of P.W.1 to 9, we find that their evidences throw no light on the case of prosecution, specially for proving the charges leveled against appellants. 11. Now, coming to the statement of court witness no.1, namely, Sushil Kumar Jha, it appears that he is a constable and was posted in the police line Dumka. He proved the hand-writing and signature of Baidya Nath Singh, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Ramgarh police station, on Ext.7. It is worth mentioning that Ext.7 is alleged to be the confessional statement of Appellant Kirani Hembram, which was recorded by Baidya Nath Singh. From perusal of Ext.7, we find that there are two thumb impressions on it. One is of Rameshwar Murmu, who appears to be a witness of confession. But there is nothing on record to show that who is the second person, who put his thumb impression on Ext.7 . The court witness no.1 had not stated that said thumb impression is of appellant Kirani Hembram. It is worth mentioning that court witness no.1 in his cross-examination has admitted that said confessional statement was not recorded in his presence and he also did not know about the contents of confessional statement. We further find that prosecution had not examined Rameshwar Murmu, who put his thumb impression as witness on Ext.7 and no explanation given for his non-examination. Under the said circumstance, we find that Ext.7 i.e alleged confessional statement of Kirani Hembram has not been proved by the prosecution. We further find that there is nothing on the record to show that head of deceased was recovered on the basis of Ext.7. Prosecution has not produced any witness to show that head of deceased was recovered on the basis of confession of appellant Kirani Hembram. Even in the inquest report, Ext.6, it was not mentioned. Under the said circumstance, we find that prosecution has failed to prove that head of deceased recovered on the basis of confession of appellant Kirani Hembram. 12. While interpreting Section 27 of the Evidence Act, their Lordships of Supreme Court in the case of “Jaffar Hussain Dastagir Vs. Even in the inquest report, Ext.6, it was not mentioned. Under the said circumstance, we find that prosecution has failed to prove that head of deceased recovered on the basis of confession of appellant Kirani Hembram. 12. While interpreting Section 27 of the Evidence Act, their Lordships of Supreme Court in the case of “Jaffar Hussain Dastagir Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 1969(2) SCC-872 held as follows : "That in order that the section may apply the prosecution must establish that the information given by the appellant led to the discovery of some fact deposed to by him. It is evident that the discovery must be of some fact which the police had not previously learnt from other sources and that the knowledge of the fact was first derived from information given by the accused. The essential ingredient of the section is that the information given by the accused must lead to the discovery of the fact which is the direct outcome of such information. Secondly, only such portion of the information given as is distinctly connected with the said discovery is admissible against the accused. Thirdly, the discovery of the fact must relate to the commission of some offence. The embargo on statements of the accused before the police will not apply if all the above conditions are fulfilled." 13. As notice above, in the instant case, prosecution has not proved that Ext.7 is the statement of appellant Kirani Hembram. Likewise, prosecution has also failed to prove that head of the deceased recovered on the basis of confessional statement of appellant Kirani Hembram. 14. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we find that learned court below committed serious illegality in convicting the appellants on the basis of Ext.7. Accordingly, impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence cannot be sustained in these appeals 15. In view of discussion made above, these appeals are allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka in Sessions Case No. 19 of 2001 is hereby set aside. Appellants, namely, Manishal Murmu, Kirani Hembram and Surendra Murmu are acquitted from the charges levelled against them. The court below is directed to release appellant, namely, Manishal Murmu [In Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 288/2003],who is in custody, forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. Appellants, namely, Manishal Murmu, Kirani Hembram and Surendra Murmu are acquitted from the charges levelled against them. The court below is directed to release appellant, namely, Manishal Murmu [In Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 288/2003],who is in custody, forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. It appears that other appellants, namely, Kirani Hembram and Surendra Murmu, who are on bail, are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds.