JUDGMENT K.C. Puri, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is the judgment dated 13.3.2003 and order 20.3.2003 passed by Shri J.D. Chandana, the then Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc) Hisar vide which accused/appellant Joginder Singh has been convicted for offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. The law was set in motion by recording the statement of Anil Chhabra, who has stated that he is running a shop of General Store in the name of the Chhabra General Store. On the day of occurrence at about 8.00 a.m. when he reached near Punjab National Bank, a young boy came from behind on black colour Hero Honda motorcycle, whose number he could not note. The said person, with intention to kill fire shots, which hit him on the back of his waist. The said boy ran away on the motorcycle by the side lane. The boy was wearing pant and shirt. He could identify him if he came before him. Ricky Munjal brought him to the hospital. The complainant has further stated that bullet injuries had been given to him at the asking of Lilla and Satish. Site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared. Statements of the PWs were recorded. Accused were arrested. After completion of necessary investigation, challan against the accused was presented. 2. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were supplied to the accused free of costs. Since offence under Section 307 IPC was alleged against the accused, therefore, the Illaqa Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Session for trial. 3. Charge under Section 307 of the IPC was framed against all the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined Subhash Chander (PW-1), Inspector Bhoop Singh (PW-2), Ricky Munjal (PW-3), Suresh Kumar (PW-4), EHC Pyare Lal (PW-5), ASI Lal Singh (PW-6), Constable Dilbag Singh (PW-7), Dr. K.N. Srivastav (PW-8), Dr. Lt. Col. 4. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined Subhash Chander (PW-1), Inspector Bhoop Singh (PW-2), Ricky Munjal (PW-3), Suresh Kumar (PW-4), EHC Pyare Lal (PW-5), ASI Lal Singh (PW-6), Constable Dilbag Singh (PW-7), Dr. K.N. Srivastav (PW-8), Dr. Lt. Col. Retd N.C. Verma (PW-9), Anil Kumar (PW-10), Nanak Chand (PW-11), HC Ved Pal (PW-12), ASI Balbir Singh (PW-13), HC Ved Parkash (PW-14), Inspector Jagat Singh (PW-15), SI Jai Singh (PW-16), SI Bir Singh (PW- 17), ASI Rajpal (PW-18) and closed the prosecution evidence after tendering certain documents. 5. In the statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the allegations and pleaded innocence. The accused did not lead any evidence in defence. 6. The trial court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties convicted accused Joginder Singh alone whereas acquitted all other accused from the charges levelled against them vide judgment dated 13.3.2003 and sentenced accused Joginder Singh vide order dated 20.3.2003. 7. Feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment dated 13.3.2003 and order dated 20.3.2003, the present appeal has been directed by appellant-Joginder Singh. 8. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides and have gone through the records of the case. 9. On re-appreciation of the evidence, the conviction recorded by the trial Court cannot sustain and accused-appellant has to be acquitted by giving him benefit of doubt on the grounds mentioned hereunder. 10. The case of the prosecution is that at the in-' stance of Lilla and Satish, their stooge had fired. According to the prosecution, Lilla and Satish are the conspirators but the trial Court after appreciating the evidence reached to the conclusion that prosecution has failed to prove the motive. The evidence against Lilla and Satish was the disclosure statement made by them. The trial Court gave a categoric finding that disclosure statement made by Lilla and Satish regarding their guilt cannot be given effect being inadmissible in evidence. However, the trial Court has relied upon the disclosure statement made by Joginder Singh. The only distinction in the disclosure statement made by Lilla and Satish and appellant is that an empty cartridge was recovered at the instance of Joginder Singh-appellant. Now the question arises that mere recovery of empty cartridge is sufficient to convict a person under Section 307 of the IPC ? The answer to that, question, on the facts of the present case, is in negative. 11. Now the question arises that mere recovery of empty cartridge is sufficient to convict a person under Section 307 of the IPC ? The answer to that, question, on the facts of the present case, is in negative. 11. The prosecution has not produced the gun in the present case. The said gun and empty cartridge were not sent to Forensic Science Laboratory to prove the fact that it was fired from the Gun, which was recovered from the accused in another case. According to the prosecution the gun was recovered in another case registered under Section 398 of the IPC etc. against the appellant. The trial Court, itself has observed in its judgment that prosecution story is not believable on account of the fact that gun has not been sent for chemical examination nor has seen the day of light in the present case. 12. The star witness for the prosecution in the present case is Anil Kumar injured and Nanak Chand PW-11 father of injured, both have not supported the case of the prosecution regarding' the involvement of the appellant. Both of them have stated that they did not saw the accused firing upon injured Anil Kumar. Anil Kumar has stated that accused present in the Court is not the person, who fired at him. Nanak Chand PW-11 has stated that he did not see any person firing shot aiming at his son. So, we are left with only circumstantial evidence. The Parliament in its wisdom has enacted Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1972 to lay down the law that confession made before the police official is inadmissible. The only exception to Sections 25 and 26 is 27 of the Indian Evidence Act is Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which lays down as under :- 27. How much of information received from accused may be proved.- Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved. 13. 13. From the reading of the above said provision, it is revealed that any fact deposed which led to recovery of incriminating evidence while in custody of the police officials would be admissible. The prosecution could have invoked the provisions of Section 27 of the Act only in case it is able to prove that the empty cartridge relates to the present occurrence. This could be proved only if the prosecution could have produced the report of Forensic Science Laboratory to the effect that empty cartridge recovered from the accused was fired from the gun recovered from the accused. It is not out of place to mention here that charge under Section 25 of the Arms Act has not been framed against the accused. Admittedly, gun recovered from the accused has not been sent for analysis along with the cartridge alleged to be recovered from the appellant to prove the fact that it was fired from the same gun recovered from the accused/appellant. So, the confessional statements Ex. P-5 and Ex. P-6 made by the appellant cannot form the basis of conviction. 14. Learned State counsel is fair enough to concede that except confessional statement, there is no evidence on the file. The Division Bench of this Court in authority reported in Madan Mohan @ David v. State of Haryana reported in 1997(1) RCR page 713 held that disclosure statement made by the accused in the form of confession before a police officer, is totally unreliable and not admissible in evidence. 15. The Constitutional Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in authority Haricharan Kurmi v. State of Bihar reported as AIR 1964 SC page 1184 dealt in respect of Section 30 of the Act. According to Section 30 of the Act confession of co-accused against other co-accused jointly for trial of the same offence may be taken into consideration. However, Hon'ble Apex Court in said ruling Haricharan Kurmi's case (supra) held that without corroborative evidence, the confession made by the co-accused should not be accepted. There is nothing on the file that confessional statements Ex. P-5 and Ex. P-6 relied upon by the accused is corroborative by any other evidence. 16. Rikhi Munjal (PW-3), the other alleged eye witness has also deposed that he was not present at the time of occurrence of the present case. There is nothing on the file that confessional statements Ex. P-5 and Ex. P-6 relied upon by the accused is corroborative by any other evidence. 16. Rikhi Munjal (PW-3), the other alleged eye witness has also deposed that he was not present at the time of occurrence of the present case. So, there is no convincing evidence on the file to prove the guilt of appellant for offence under Section 307 of the IPC. 17. In recent authority of Division Bench of this Court in State of Haryana v. Rajbir reported in 2011 (5) R.C.R. (Cri.) page 674, the Division Bench of this Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the State of Haryana in a case where the complainant has not supported the case of prosecution and pistol was not recovered from the accused. It was held in that case that presence of the accused at the time and place of occurrence not established by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubts hence acquittal order passed by the trial Court was affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court. 18. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is accepted and the judgment of the trial Court, stands set aside. The accused stands acquitted of the charges levelled against him by giving him benefit of doubt. Fine, if any, be refunded to the accused as per rules. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance. Appeal allowed.