Judgment Deepak Gupta, J. 1. This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 1.9.2004 delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala, whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 4.6.2003 PW-5 Pritam Chand got his statement recorded with the police under Section 154 Cr.P.C. Ext. PW-5/A. In this statement he stated that he works as a Beldar in the PWD. On 4.6.2003, at about 8.30 a.m. he was working in his fields. His wife Vidya Devi shouted and asked him to come home immediately. When he was near his house he heard the sound of some women crying from the house of Leelo Devi. He went inside the house of Leelo Devi and saw that Leelo Devi was lying dead. Thereafter he rang up Leelo Devi sister’s husband Kashmir Chand. At about 9.30 a.m. a lot of women had gathered and they started changing the clothes which Leelo Devi was wearing. At that time they noticed injuries mark on the stomach, throat and chest of Leelo Devi. Then they became suspicious that Leelo Devi may have been killed. Soon thereafter accused Rachhpal Singh came on the road near the house of Leelo Devi. He was in a state of intoxication. He started saying that Leelo Devi who had given shelter to his mother and sister has suffered for that. He had settled scores with Leelo Devi at night and he would now settle scores with others. Thereafter, the people caught hold of accused Rachhpal. On the night intervening 3rd and 4th June, 2003, Rachhpal had beaten his mother and both his mother and sister had escaped and taken shelter in the house of Gorkhu Ram. Therefore, the complainant suspected that accused Rachhpal had killed Leelo Devi. This statement is stated to have been recorded at 7.00 or 5.00 p.m. on 4.6.2003. 3. On the very same day, there is a daily diary report No.3 entered in Police Post, Rehan wherein Sandhya Devi, mother of Rachhpal, has complained that he had beaten her up the previous night and action be taken and in the same daily diary report it is mentioned that Sandhya Devi was being taken to CHC, Rehan. 3. On the very same day, there is a daily diary report No.3 entered in Police Post, Rehan wherein Sandhya Devi, mother of Rachhpal, has complained that he had beaten her up the previous night and action be taken and in the same daily diary report it is mentioned that Sandhya Devi was being taken to CHC, Rehan. On that very day i.e. on 4.6.2003 there is another daily diary report at Serial No. 13 in which it is mentioned that about 4.30 p.m. Ward Panch Ram Pal of Gram Panchayat, Duck came to the police post and informed that one lady Leelo Devi used to reside alone in the village and she has died and that the villagers suspect that she had been murdered. Thereafter the Head Constable along with Constables proceeded towards the spot. Head Constable Kuldip Singh informed the police station at Nurpur and daily diary report in this behalf is Ext. PW-16/A. On the basis of this, F.I.R Ext. PW-17/A was recorded at 8.05 p.m. Thereafter, the police carried out the investigation. Postmortem on the body of Leelo Devi was conducted by PW-1 Dr. D.R. Rayal and there is no dispute that Leelo Devi had died due to strangulation and throttling and there were certain injuries on her body. 4. The accused was produced by the police before PW-2 Dr. Subhash Thakur and his breath was smelling of alcohol. As many as 8 injuries were found on the person of the accused. The witness has admitted that these injuries could be caused if the accused was beaten by a group of persons. 5. PW-3 Dr. R.K. Mehta of Community Health Centre, Rehan examined Sandhya Devi, mother of the accused, on 4.6.2003 at 11.30 a.m. and found two simple injuries on her person. On the basis of this material, the accused was charged with having committed the murder of Leelo Devi. The learned trial Court has acquitted the accused, hence this appeal by the State. 6. There is no eye witness to the incident and the case is based on circumstantial evidence. The law is well settled that in a case of circumstantial evidence the prosecution is required to connect all the circumstances and link them in such a manner that they lead to only one conclusion i.e. the guilt of the accused. 6. There is no eye witness to the incident and the case is based on circumstantial evidence. The law is well settled that in a case of circumstantial evidence the prosecution is required to connect all the circumstances and link them in such a manner that they lead to only one conclusion i.e. the guilt of the accused. If there is a possibility of the accused having not committed the crime or there is any chance of any other person having committed the crime, then the accused cannot be convicted on the basis of such circumstantial evidence. 7. In the present case the first circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is the allegation of the prosecution that Sandhya Devi mother of the accused was beaten by the accused and thereafter since Sandhya Devi was given shelter in the house of Leelo Devi he got annoyed and killed her. Sandhya Devi was not examined on the ground that she being the mother of the accused had been won over by the accused. In our view this is not sufficient reason to give up Sandhya Devi and she should have been examined to at least prove the fact that she had got a complaint lodged with the police and that she was got examined from PW-3 Dr. R.K. Mehta. Due to her non-examination, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove this circumstance. 8. The main circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is the alleged extra judicial confession made by the accused in front of various villagers. While appearing in Court PW-5 Pritam Chand states that after he had reached the house of Leelo Devi and found that she was dead and injuries had been found on her person and the persons present suspected that Leelo Devi had been throttled to death then the accused reached the spot under the influence of liquor at about 1.00 p.m. This is when the accused is alleged to have stated that he had done what he had to do. Whereas in the statement under Section 154 Cr. P.C. this witness has stated that they apprehended the accused, but in Court this witness stated that none of the persons present tried to ask the accused what had happened. Whereas in the statement under Section 154 Cr. P.C. this witness has stated that they apprehended the accused, but in Court this witness stated that none of the persons present tried to ask the accused what had happened. Another contradiction in the statement of this witness is that whereas in the earlier part of his statement he has clearly stated that by the time the accused arrived at 1.00 p.m. the villagers knew or at least suspected that the deceased had been murdered, in the later part of his examination-in-chief he has stated that when the accused reached the spot and was wandering outside the house of Leelo Devi they did not know that Leelo Devi had expired. This portion of the statement of the witness appears to be totally false. Furthermore whereas in the statement Ext. PW-5/A it is clearly mentioned that the accused was apprehended by the villagers, in Court this witness states that the accused was never apprehended. 9. PW-6 Gorkhu Ram states that on 4.6.2003 at about 10.30 a.m. he received a telephonic message from PW-5 to the effect that his sister Leelo Devi had died. He then went to village Sahor to the house of Leelo Devi and after the injuries were seen on the body of Leelo Devi they suspected that she had been murdered. The Pardhan of Gram Panchayat was called and thereafter the villagers apprehended accused Rachhpal who stated that he has done what he had to do. Then the police came to the spot and prepared the inquest report etc. In cross-examination he clearly states that he had reached the house of Leelo Devi at 11.00 a.m. and by that time the Pardhan had already reported the matter to the police and had stated that the police was coming. According to him the accused was apprehended after half an hour of his reaching the spot i.e. at about 11.30 a.m. He also states that the police also reached the spot within half an hour of his reaching the spot. PW-6 has also admitted that accused Rachhpal was badly beaten by the villagers on 4.6.2003 and received injuries. 10. According to him the accused was apprehended after half an hour of his reaching the spot i.e. at about 11.30 a.m. He also states that the police also reached the spot within half an hour of his reaching the spot. PW-6 has also admitted that accused Rachhpal was badly beaten by the villagers on 4.6.2003 and received injuries. 10. PW-7 Balwant Singh is the Pardhan of the Gram Panchayat and according to him on 4.6.2003, sister of accused Rachhpal, namely, Sureshtha Devi, who was married to PW-6 Gorkhu Ram, came to his house and told him that Leelo Devi had died and asked him to visit the spot. His version is that after he reached the spot the body of Leelo Devi was examined and injuries were found and then he informed the police telephonically. According to him he informed the police both at Nurpur and Rehan about the incident. His version is that at about 12.00 noon he had telephonically informed the police of both the police stations and the police reached the spot at 2.00 or 2.30 p.m. He denied the suggestion that the accused was beaten by the villagers. 11. PW-8 Ratti Ram is also a member of the Gram Panchayat and according to him he received a telephonic call from PW-7 and went to the spot. In cross-examination he states that at about 7.00 a.m. he had telephonically informed the Pardhan about the death of Leelo Devi and all the villagers and relatives of deceased had come to know about the death of Leelo Devi. His version is that PW-7 reached the spot at 7.30 a.m. and after seeing the body everybody was sure that Leelo Devi had been murdered. Thereafter the police was called. He also states that on 4th June, 2003 itself the police officials asked Rachhpal accused what had happened and he took the police to the spot where he had hidden the test pin (screw driver having a small bulb) which was used to cause injuries on Leelo Devi. His version is totally contrary to his own version in examination-in-chief and the version of the police that this test pin/tester was recovered at the instance of the accused on 5.6.2003. 12. PW-9 Niaz Ali states that at about 10.30 a.m. on 4.6.2003 he received a telephonic message from PW-7 that Leelo Devi has been murdered in village Sahor. His version is totally contrary to his own version in examination-in-chief and the version of the police that this test pin/tester was recovered at the instance of the accused on 5.6.2003. 12. PW-9 Niaz Ali states that at about 10.30 a.m. on 4.6.2003 he received a telephonic message from PW-7 that Leelo Devi has been murdered in village Sahor. He then went to the spot. After that the police was also informed. 13. PW-12 Ashok Kumar, who is brother in law of deceased Leelo Devi, also reached the spot at 11.00 a.m. and found that she was lying dead with injuries on her person. A large number of persons were present on the spot. According to him at about 2.30 p.m. the accused reached the spot and made a confession that he committed the murder of Leelo Devi. 14. From the aforesaid evidence it is more than obvious that by 8 or 9 O’clock in the morning the villagers were aware that Leelo Devi had been killed. The Pardhan and other witnesses clearly state that the police was informed about the murder of Leelo Devi latest by 11.00 a.m. We, therefore, fail to understand why the daily diary report in this behalf is entered at 4.30 p.m. and that too is a very vague and incomplete report. 15. In case, as stated by the witnesses Rachhpal had made an extra judicial confession then the police when it was informed about the incident at 4.30 p.m. should have clearly recorded that as per the informant the murder had been committed by accused Rachhpal. PW-6 has clearly stated that when he reached the spot at 11.00 a.m. the Pardhan already reported the matter to the police. According to him the accused was apprehended after half an hour i.e. at about 11.30 a.m. He also states that the police also reached the spot at about 11.30 a.m. If the police and the accused reached the spot at about the same time and the accused had been apprehended then he could not have made an extra judicial confession in the presence of the police and therefore, his so called confession cannot be relied upon. 16. In this case from the material on record it is more than apparent that the investigation has not been fair. 16. In this case from the material on record it is more than apparent that the investigation has not been fair. If the police had been informed about the incident by 11.00 or 11.30 a.m. why has it, in its record, shown that the first report in this behalf was made only at 4.30 a.m. The statement of PW-5 was recorded at 7.30 p.m. There was enough opportunity for the evidence to be collected and a false case to be concocted. 17. The prosecution has failed to prove why no action was taken by the police from the morning till the evening. The police itself produced the accused before PW-2 on 4.6.2003. If an extra judicial confession has been made why was he not arrested on the same day and why was his arrest shown on the next day i.e. 5.6.2003. All these facts clearly indicate that the accused was already in the custody of the police and the so called extra judicial confession was made when the accused was already apprehended by the police. Since such a confession would not be admissible in evidence, the police has come up with a false case that the confession was made to the persons when the police was not present and hence the presence of the police has been shown to be at a later course of time. 18. An extra judicial confession is a very weak piece of evidence. In our view in the present case the so called confession was made in the presence of the police officials and to avoid the rigors of Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, the police came up with a false version. We are, therefore, of the view that the main circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is not proved. 19. We are also of the view that the police has miserably failed to prove the recovery of the test pin because there are contradictions in the statements of the witnesses and one of the witnesses i.e. PW-8 Ratti Ram has admitted that the test pin was recovered on 4.6.2003 whereas the accused is supposed to have been arrested on 5.6.2003. 20. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the learned trial Court was fully justified in acquitting the accused. We, therefore, find no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. 20. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the learned trial Court was fully justified in acquitting the accused. We, therefore, find no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds are discharged.