JUDGMENT Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 9th of October, 1996 passed in Sessions Trial No. 6/96 by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District Sarguja. 2. By the impugned judgment, the appellant has been convicted u/ss 302 & 201 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and R.I. for 7 years, with direction to run the sentences concurrently. 3. The facts, briefly stated, are as under :- Deceased-Somari was mother-in-law of the appellant. The case of the prosecution is that on 29.10.95 at about 9.00 a.m. the appellant committed murder of the deceased by assaulting her by stone, and thereafter threw her dead body in the well. The appellant, her husband Suber Ram (PW-3) and the deceased were residing together in village Bhakura. On 29.10.95 at about 7.00 a.m., Suber Ram (PW-3) had gone for his work. When he returned at about 12.00 Noon, he did not find the deceased in his house. Search was made and on the next day, the dead body of the deceased was found in the well. The Chowkidar was informed and merg intimation (Ex.-P/3) was lodged. The Investigation Officer reached to the place of occurrence, gave notice (Ex.-P/4) to the Panchas and prepared inquest (Ex.-P/5) on the dead body of the deceased. The dead body was sent for post-mortem to District Hospital, Ambikapur. The post-mortem examination was conducted by Dr. Manoj Jaiswal (PW-10) who found multiple serious injuries on the dead body of the deceased and opined that the cause of death was shock due to head injury and injury over the neck and the death was homicidal in nature. The post-mortem report is EX.-P/12. During the course of investigation, the appellant was taken into custody and her memorandum statement (Ex.-P/6) u/s 27 of the Evidence Act was recorded and some stones were seized at her instance video seizure memo Ex.-P/7. Though the seized articles were sent for their chemical examination to Forensic Science Laboratory (F.S.L.), but the F.S.L. report could not be filed. Admittedly, there was no eye-witness to the incident and the case of the prosecution was based on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution relied on the circumstances of last seen together and extra-judicial confession allegedly made by the appellant before Sohan Das (PW-6). 4. Mr. Admittedly, there was no eye-witness to the incident and the case of the prosecution was based on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution relied on the circumstances of last seen together and extra-judicial confession allegedly made by the appellant before Sohan Das (PW-6). 4. Mr. Arvind Dubey, learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the State, has argued that both the circumstances were rightly held proved against the appellant and the conviction is well founded. 5. Having heard Mr. Dubey we have perused the records of the sessions case. 6. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstance, on which the conviction is to be based should be fully established. They should be of conclusive nature and tendency. The circumstances should not be capable of being explained and they should only point towards the guilt of the accused. The chain of circumstances must be complete so as not to leave any doubt regarding complicity of the accused in crime in question. 7. The learned Sessions Judge has held that the deceased was in the company of the appellant in the morning when Suber Ram (PW-3 son of the deceased) had left the house for going to the fields, and when he returned back at about 12.00 Noon, the deceased was not traceable. Suber Ram (PW3) deposed that when he returned to the house at about 12.00 Noon, he did not find his mother (deceased). On the next day, her dead body was found in the well. In cross-examination, Para-4, he deposed that when he was leaving the house, his mother and wife were present in the house and when he returned, his wife was present in the house and his mother was preparing for going to market. He cannot say as to how his mother fell into the well. The learned Sessions Judge appears to have misread the evidence and has held that the deceased was lastly seen in the company of the appellant in the morning. According to Suber Ram (PW-3), the deceased was also seen by him in the house when he returned from the field at about 12.00 Noon. Therefore, the circumstance of last seen in the morning, as alleged by the prosecution, was not established. Moreover, there is long time gap between the deceased allegedly seen alive in the company of the appellant and her dead body found. 8. Therefore, the circumstance of last seen in the morning, as alleged by the prosecution, was not established. Moreover, there is long time gap between the deceased allegedly seen alive in the company of the appellant and her dead body found. 8. Sohan Das (PW-6) is the witness of extra-judicial confession. In examination-in-chief, he deposed that the appellant made extra-judicial confession before him in presence of village Sarpanch that she had committed murder of the deceased and had thrown her dead body in the well. In cross-examination, Para-3, he admitted that when Daroga came to the village, they had asked the appellant before him and then she (appellant) made above confession. In Para-4, he further deposed that the police persons took the appellant near the 'well and gave her 2 danda blows. After beating her by danda, when she was brought to the house, then she made the above confession before Daroga. Jainandan (PW-4) has also deposed that the police had beaten the appellant by giving her 2 danda blows. This shows that the alleged confession was made in presence of the police officer and it was made only after the appellant was beaten by the police. We are of the view that in the above facts and circumstances of the case, the confession, allegedly made by the appellant, was not admissible in evidence and the learned Sessions Judge erred in relying on the evidence of extra-judicial confession. 9. For the foregoing reasons, we are unable to sustain the conviction of the appellant on the above set of circumstantial evidence. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence& awarded to the appellant u/ss 302 & 201 IPC are set-aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges framed against her. It is stated that the appellant is on bail. Her bail bonds are cancelled and surety stands discharged. Appeal Allowed.