JUDGMENT Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. 1. The appellants are aggrieved by the judgment dated 11.11.1997, passed in Sessions Trial No. 114/94 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar, District Raipur. By the impugned judgment, they have been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default sentence of R.I. for 1 year. 2. The facts, briefly stated, are as under:- 2.1. Deceased - Ramkunwarbai was mother of appellant Ramesh Kumar (A-6). Appellant - Jodhan (A-2) and Radheshyam (A-1) are father and son. The deceased was aunt of Radheshyam (A-1) and sister-in-law of Jodhan (A-2). She was aged about 60-65 years and was residing with appellant - Ramesh Kumar (A-6). Ramesar, an other son of Jodhan (A-2) was ill since last 15 days. Their family members suspected that he was ill on account of witchcraft (Jadu Tona) played by his aunt Ramkunwarbai (deceased). The case of the prosecution is that on 9.7.93, the accused persons (A-1 to A-13) formed an unlawful assembly, participated in rioting and in furtherance of common object of the said assembly, went to the house of the deceased and committed her murder by assaulting her by hands and fists. The further case of the prosecution is that after commission of murder of the deceased, her dead body was taken by Radheshyam (A-1) and was kept in his Kotha. Radheshyam (A-1), thereafter, went to Police Station and lodged the First Information Report (FIR Ex. P/25). It was a confessional FIR. The S.H.O. reached to the village and recorded a discovery statement (Ex. P/7) of Radheshyam (A-1) under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, and the dead body was allegedly recovered and a Panchanama (Ex. P/8) was prepared. 2.2. The dead body was sent for postmortem. The postmortem examination was conducted by Dr. R.P. Pandey (PW-9). He noticed following superficial injuries on the dead body of the deceased : i. Contusion of 1.5 x 1 inch on the left portion of chest; and ii. Multiple superficial abrasions on the upper portion of back. On internal examination, it was found that there were blood clots on the tissues between 7th and 8th ribs. Blood clots were also found near lumber spine. Multiple superficial abrasions on the upper portion of back. On internal examination, it was found that there were blood clots on the tissues between 7th and 8th ribs. Blood clots were also found near lumber spine. The Autopsy Surgeon opined that the injuries were ante-mortem and were caused by hard and rough object and the cause of death was syncope due to above injuries. The postmortem report is Ex. P/14. 2.3. The prosecution came with the case that the 13 accused persons (A-1 to A-13) had assaulted the deceased by hands land fists on account of she being depicted as a Tonahi. Many witnesses (villagers) were cited as eye witnesses by the prosecution. However, almost all the witnesses (except the Police witnesses) have turned hostile and they did not support the case of the prosecution. A finding to this effect was also recorded by the Sessions Judge in para 7 and 8 of the impugned judgment. Even after recording such finding, the learned Sessions Judge held that since appellant Radheshyam (A-1), who lodged the FIR (Ex. P/25), also gave information that the dead body of the deceased was kept in his Kotha, therefore, it was admissible against him and the dead body was recovered on his instance, therefore, he was liable for punishment under Section 302 IPC. 2.4. It was further held that Radheshyam (A-1) mentioned in the FIR that Jodhan (A-2) and Ramesh Kumar (A-6) had also participated in keeping the dead body in the Kotha, therefore, they were also liable for punishment under Section 302 IPC. The 3 appellants, thus, were convicted as above. However, the other 10 accused persons were acquitted of the charges framed against them. Hence, this appeal. 3. Dr. N.K. Shukla, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has argued that there was absolutely no legal evidence against the appellants the confessional FIR (Ex.P/25) was not admissible; there was no discovery through the FIR as the dead body was kept in the Kotha from safety point of view, because the villagers/relatives had gone to the Police Station to lodge the report after keeping the dead body in the Kotha in presence of many villagers. He further argued that when it was already in the knowledge of the Police that the dead body was kept in Kotha, the discovery statement of Radheshyam (A-1) and the Panchanama of the dead body shown to be discovered on the said statement were of no consequence. He also argued that even if the discovery portion of the FIR is admitted in evidence, that would not be admissible against the other 2 appellants namely - Jodhan (A-2) and Ramesh Kumar (A-6). 4. On the other hand, Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the State, has opposed these arguments and supported the judgment passed by the Sessions Court. 5. We have heard counsel for the parties. 6. We see from the record that all the eye-witnesses have turned hostile and they have not supported the case of the prosecution. Even the daughter of the deceased namely- Urmilabai (PW-1) and her son Naresh Kumar (PW-2) both have also turned hostile. They have been put to lengthy cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor, but nothing material could be elicited in their cross-examination. The Sessions Judge has also held that none of the eye-witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. The Sessions Judge has also rightly held that the confessional part of the FIR (Ex. P/25) lodged by accused Radheshyam (A-1) was not admissible in evidence in view of Section 25 of the Evidence Act. He has relied on the judgment of Aghnoo Nagesia Vs. State of Bihar AIR 1966 SC 119 . However, it was held that in the last para of the FIR, Radheshyam (A-1) had stated that he had kept the dead body in his Kotha, therefore, this information was admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and the recovery of the dead body on the information given by Radheshyam (A-1) would be read against him and it was a sufficient circumstance against him for his conviction under Section 302 IPC. It was further held that Radheshyam (A-1) had stated that Jodhan (A-2) and Ramesh Kumar (A-6) had also participated in keeping the dead body in his Kotha, therefore, they were equally liable for punishment under Section 302 IPC. 7. Dr. Shukla has raised two fold arguments. It was further held that Radheshyam (A-1) had stated that Jodhan (A-2) and Ramesh Kumar (A-6) had also participated in keeping the dead body in his Kotha, therefore, they were equally liable for punishment under Section 302 IPC. 7. Dr. Shukla has raised two fold arguments. His first argument is that since the appellants were son, nephew and brother-in-law of the deceased, they had kept the dead body in their house after the incident in an usual manner in presence of many villagers and they themselves had gone to the Police Station to lodge the report. Therefore, it was not a case that the body was hidden and it was discovered on the information given by the accused. Thus, in the instant case, the provisions of Section 27 Evidence Act would not be attracted. Secondly, he argued that the FIR was lodged by Radheshyam (A-1). Even if it is taken that the discovery was made through the said report, the statement made by Radheshyam (A-1) in the introductory part that the other co-accused persons had also participated in keeping the dead body in his house would not be read against them. 8. We have examined the record in light of the above arguments. 9. The case of the prosecution is that when 12-13 persons attacked over the deceased depicting her Tonahi, the deceased received some superficial injuries and thereafter, when the inmates of the house of the deceased as also her close relatives (the 3 appellants) found that she was dead, then they kept the dead body of the deceased in their Kotha and immediately rushed to the Police Station to lodged a report. This shows that it was not a case, in which, the dead body was hidden by the appellants. If the appellants would have hidden the dead body, why they would have gone to the Police Station to lodge the report making discovery of all facts. We are of the view that in the above facts and circumstances of the case, nothing was to be discovered as everything was publicly known and an element of discovery in consequence of information, which is an important aspect of Section 27, is not present in this matter. 10. The provisions of Section 27 of the Evidence Act are exception to the normal rule of admissibility of evidence made by an accused while in Police custody. 10. The provisions of Section 27 of the Evidence Act are exception to the normal rule of admissibility of evidence made by an accused while in Police custody. A fact, therefore, must be actually "discovered" as a "consequence" of information by an accused while he is in custody. However, if the facts relating to any information is publicly known to all; then, in such situation there would be hardly any occasion for "discovery" on the "information" of the accused. 11. In the instant case, as we have already stated, as per the prosecution, many villagers had gathered near the place of occurrence and after the incident, the appellants when found that the deceased, who was their mother, aunt and sister-in-law had died, they took the dead body from the Chabutara and kept it in their Kotha and immediately rushed to the Police Station to lodge a report. We are of the view that in the above facts and circumstances of the case, there was no question of discovery so as to make the above information admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. 12. The Sessions Judge has also relied on the discovery statement (memorandum) of appellant - Radheshyam (A-1). It was separately recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. It is shown by the prosecution that the dead body was recovered on the information given in the said memorandum (Ex.P/7) by Radheshyam (A-1). If the information relating to the dead body was already with the Police vide the contents of the FIR which was already lodged by Radheshyam (A-1), then, in fact, there was no necessity of recording a separate discovery statement (Ex. P/7) of Radheshyam (A-1), because in that situation, the fact relating to keeping of the dead body in the Kotha of the house was already known to the Police. Therefore, the said discovery statement (Ex.P/7) and showing the dead body recovered on the said statement by the Panchanama (Ex. P/8) all were redundant. 13. The learned Sessions Judge has not taken into consideration all these aspects and has simply held that there was a circumstance of discovery of the dead body on the memorandum statement of appellant Radheshaym (A-1), therefore, Radheshaym (A-1) was liable for punishment under Section 302 IPC. P/8) all were redundant. 13. The learned Sessions Judge has not taken into consideration all these aspects and has simply held that there was a circumstance of discovery of the dead body on the memorandum statement of appellant Radheshaym (A-1), therefore, Radheshaym (A-1) was liable for punishment under Section 302 IPC. We have already held that there was no question of discovery and the dead body was simply kept by the relatives of the deceased in their house and they had gone to lodge the report, therefore, the circumstance of the alleged recovery was not incriminating against the appellants, and only upon the said solitary circumstance, they cannot be held liable for punishment under Section 302 IPC. 14. Moreover, so far as appellants-Jodhan (A-2) and Ramesh Kumar (A-6) are concerned, there is absolutely no evidence against them. Their names come in the FIR lodged by Radheshyam (A-1) saying that they had also participated in keeping the dead body in the Kotha of Radheshyam (A-1). Ramesh Kumar (A-6) is son of the deceased and Jodhan (A-2) is brother-in-law of the deceased. Even if they had participated in keeping the dead body in the Kotha of Radheshyam (A-1), looking to the relationship, it was a natural act on their part and the said circumstance cannot be held to be incriminating against them. Moreover, substantially except their names coming in the alleged statement made by Radheshyam (A-1), there was no other evidence against them. 15. On due consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are unable to sustain the conviction of the appellants on the solitary circumstance of alleged discovery statement and recovery of the dead body held to be incriminating against them. The above circumstance was not fully established. It was not of conclusive nature and tendency. It was capable of being explained and in no manner it was sufficient to hold the appellants guilty of an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. 16. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentences awarded to the appellants under Section 302 IPC are set-aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges framed against them. It is stated that the appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds shall continue for a period of 6 months in view of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. Appeal Allowed.