JUDGMENT A.P. LAVAN DE, J. :- By this appeal, the appellant (hereinafter referred to as "the accused") takes exception to judgment and order dated 20.4.2009 & 21.4.2009 passed by Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge-1, Wardha in Sessions Trial No. 162/07 convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 & 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo S.I. for one month. No separate sentence has been imposed on the accused for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The accused was prosecuted along with one Ramu Kotnake for having committed murder of one Dnyaneshwar @ Doma Masram on 11.6.2007. The accused no. 1 Ramu Kotnake has been acquitted of both the offences for which he was charged. 3. Briefly, the prosecution case is as under :- On 11.6.2007 during morning hours at a secluded place on the bank of river at village Hiwara there was a quarrel between accused and deceased Dnyaneshwar @ Doma Masram. Both the accused killed Dnyaneshwar @ Doma Masram by giving blows of axe and sickle. Thereafter both the accused destroyed some clothes of the victim as well as their own clothes. On the next day, dead body was noticed by villagers. The police visited the spot of the incident and prepared spot panchnama and seized various articles from the spot of incident. Brother of the deceased PW.6 Bhaskar Masram lodged report at Police Station Sindi. Both the accused were arrested. The police seized their clothes at their instance. The statements of several witnesses were recorded during the course of investigation. 4. Upon conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the Court of J.M.F.C. and the case was committed for trial to the Sessions Court, Wardha. Charge was framed against both the accused for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 20 I read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In Sessions Case No. 162/07 the prosecution examined ten witnesses and produced several documents to prove the charge against the accused. Defence of the accused is of simple denial and false implication. 5. In Sessions Case No. 162/07 the prosecution examined ten witnesses and produced several documents to prove the charge against the accused. Defence of the accused is of simple denial and false implication. 5. The learned trial Court upon appreciation of the evidence led by the prosecution held that both the offences were proved only against original accused no.2 (the accused herein) and acquitted the accused No.1. The learned trial Court relied upon the following circumstances to bring home the offences under Sections 302 & 201 of Indian Penal Code for which he has been convicted by the trial Court : I. Homicidal death of Dnyaneshwar @ Doma Masram II. Extra-judicial confession made to PW.2 Rekha Hatmode, III. . Seizure of blood-stained clothes of the accused. 6. Mr. R.M. Daga, learned Advocate for the appellant/accused, submitted that there is absolutely no evidence against the accused to convict him for the offences for which he has been convicted by the learned trial Court. He further submitted that the statement alleged to have been made by the accused to PW.2 Rekha Hatmode cannot be termed as 'extra-judicial confession' and as such, no reliance could have been placed by the trial Court on the evidence of PW.2 Rekha to hold that the accused had made extra-judicial confession to her. The learned Counsel further submitted that in the absence of any evidence connecting the accused with the commission of the crime, no reliance could have been placed by the learned trial Court on the circumstance that blood was found on the clothes of the accused. He, therefore, submitted that the accused is entitled to be acquitted of both the offences for which he has been convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court. 7. Per contra, Mrs. K.S. Joshi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent State, supported the impugned judgment and order. 8. We have carefully considered rival submissions and perused the record. The case admittedly rests on circumstantial evidence. We will analyze the evidence in the light of the settled principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622 : [2009 ALL SCR (O.C.C.) 281) and find out whether the tests laid down by the Apex Court in the said case have been satisfied. 9. 9. In so far as homicidal death of deceased Dnyaneshwar @ Doma Masram is concerned, there is no serious dispute. The prosecution has examined Pw. 7 Dr. Nitinkumar Nimodia who conducted post-mortem on the dead body of Doma on 12.6.2007. He found the following external injuries on his body :- 1) Wound about 2 x 2 cm. at right post aural region. Clean edges under line bone fracture noted. Appeared due to hard and sharp object, 2) Right clavicle compound fracture with fracture fragment going inward 3) Incised wound with clean edges about 5 cm. x 3.5 cm. placed obliquely just below the right clavicle. On dissection, wound obliquely going downwards towards upper lobe of lung piercing to it. At upper lobe minimum abrasive injury with diffused contusion noted. Also at middle of lung lobe, on back side, diffused contusion noted, appeared due to hard, sharp and pointed object. In thoracic cavity, at right side blood about 100 cc. collected, taken in bottle no.3 and sealed. Lung appeared collapsed and adherent to ribs. 4) Deep abrasive injury, 3 in numbers noted each on right forearm, left forearm and left thigh, sizing approximately 4 x 3 cm., 3 x 3 cm. and 3 x 2 cm. respectively. Subcutaneous intact. All the wounds are ante-mortem. He also found the corresponding internal injuries. He identified his signature on the postmortem report (Exh.4 7) and confirmed its contents as correct. In the cross-examination, he stated that the deceased had died within 48 hours as there was no sign of decomposition of dead body. He further stated that injury to the lung could not have been caused by an axe. Having regard to the injuries found on the person Dnyaneshwar @ Doma Masram, we have no hesitation to hold that death of Dnyaneshwar @ Doma Masram was homicidal. 10. The prosecution examined two witnesses to whom the prosecution alleged that the accused had made extrajudicial confession. They are PW.2 Rekha Hatmode and PW.3 Dwarka Fulmale. PW.2 Rekha made a statement that the incident had taken place about one year ago on 11th of that month. She was in the field of Gajanan Deshmukh. At that time, Shashikalabai, Dwarkabai, Jainabai and others were also with her. At about 11.30 a.m. one person came to them and asked for water. He identified the accused no.2 (the appellant herein) as the same person. She was in the field of Gajanan Deshmukh. At that time, Shashikalabai, Dwarkabai, Jainabai and others were also with her. At about 11.30 a.m. one person came to them and asked for water. He identified the accused no.2 (the appellant herein) as the same person. That person was having Filaria in one leg. He was wearing shirt and pyjama. He was holding axe in his hand which was also stained with blood. Jainabai provided water to him. Thereafter the person went away. The said person was weeping and telling that he killed one person. Her statement was recorded next day. In cross-examination, she stated that she had never seen the accused before incident and she had told the police that said person had told her that he killed a person. However, it was noticed by the learned trial Judge that killing of a person was not mentioned in the statement but what was actually mentioned was brother was killed. She denied all the suggestions put to her. 11. PW.3 Dwarka Fulmali deposed on the same lines as that of PW.2 Rekha Hatmode but did not state that accused had stated that he had killed one person. She was cross-examined by learned A.P.P. and in the cross-examination she admitted that police had recorded statement on the next day of the incident. She admitted that accused no.2 had stayed there for half an hour. She further stated that it was true that accused no.2 was telling about murder. In cross-examination on behalf of accused no.2, the witness stated that the accused was about 25 to 30 ft. away from her. She denied all the suggestions put to her on behalf of accused no.2. 12. From the close scrutiny of evidence of PW2 Rekha and PW3 Dwarka, it is' evident that the statement alleged to have been made by the accused to PW.2 cannot be treated as extra-judicial confession. It is well-settled that confession must be unambiguous and clear. What PW2 Rekha claimed that accused had stated that he had killed one person. This cannot be treated as a confession by the accused that he killed the deceased but the same can be taken into consideration as conduct of the accused soon after the incident relevant under Section 8 of the Evidence At. Moreover, in the police statement it was stated by the witness that brother was killed. This cannot be treated as a confession by the accused that he killed the deceased but the same can be taken into consideration as conduct of the accused soon after the incident relevant under Section 8 of the Evidence At. Moreover, in the police statement it was stated by the witness that brother was killed. Admittedly, the deceased was not the brother of the accused and, therefore, by no stretch of imagination the evidence of PW.2 can be treated as extra-judicial confession. In so far as the evidence of PW. 3 Dwarka is concerned, even in the cross-examination by learned A.P.P., it has not been brought on record that the accused stated that he had committed the murder. Thus, in our opinion, the trial Court was clearly in error in relying upon the evidence of PW.2 Rekha as extra-judicial confession made by accused. 13. Coming to the next circumstance, i.e. presence of blood on the half pant and shirt of the accused, the said circumstance cannot be used against the accused to prove the offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code in the absence of any other evidence to establish that the accused had committed murder of Dnyaneshwar. Since there is absolutely no other evidence against the accused to connect him with the murder of Dnyaneshwar, the mere fact that half pant/shirt of the accused was found to have human blood is not sufficient to hold the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. It is pertinent to note that there is no other evidence led by the prosecution to connect the accused with the commission of the murder of Dnyaneshwar. 14. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the circumstances which are proved against the accused are not sufficient to establish the offence of murder against the accused and having regard to the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda, [2009 ALL SCR (O.C.C.) 281] (supra), we are of the considered opinion that the circumstantial evidence led by the prosecution falls short to prove the offence of murder of Dnyaneshwar by the accused or offence punishable under Section 201 of Indian Penal Code. In the result, therefore, the accused is entitled to be acquitted of both the offences for which he has been convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court. 15. In the result, therefore, the conviction of the appellant/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 & 201 of the Indian Penal Code vide judgment and order dated 20.4.2009/ 21.4.2009 passed by Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge-I, Wardha in Sessions Trial No. 162/07 and sentence of imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.500/ -, in default to undergo S.I. for one month, are quashed and set aside and the appellant/accused is acquitted of both the offences. The fine amount, if paid, be refunded to the accused. The order passed by the learned trial Judge in so far as disposal of property is concerned, is maintained. The accused is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case. The appeal stands accordingly disposed of. Appeal allowed.