JUDGMENT : AKIL KURESHI, J. 1. The appellant was original accused. He was charged with offence punishable under section 302 and section 201 of the Indian Penal Code by the impugned judgment dated 21st April, 2009 rendered by the Principal Sessions Judge, Bharuch, in Sessions Case No. 83 of 2008. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and for two years imprisonment for the offence under section 201 of Indian Penal Code. Fines were also imposed. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution version was that the complainant Jayantibhai Reshambhai Vasava owned agricultural land at village Maljipura. The father-in-law of the complainant, Rupalbhai Revlabhai Vasava, managed the agricultural operations. He had built a small hut and was living on the field. He had engaged accused Jagdishbhai Mohanbhai Vasava as agricultural labourer. He was, however, not satisfied with the work of Jagdishbhai Mohanbhai Vasava, and he, therefore, had thrown him out of employment. Keeping a grudge, therefore, accused Jagdishbhai Mohanbhai Vasava and his accomplice Sukedavbhai Desaibhai assaulted deceased Rupalbhai Revlabhai at any time after 3rd March, 2008 with sticks, causing serious injuries, and with the help of a piece of cloth, he was thereafter strangulated. To destroy the evidence, his dead-body was taken in the ravines a little distance away and was buried under the ground. 3. Before the charge could be framed, Sukedavbhai Desaibhai committed suicide. The charge, therefore, was framed against the sole accused Jagdishbhai Mohanbhai Vasava of having committed murder under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and also for committing offence under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Jayantibhai Reshambhai Vasava (PW-3/Exh.21) deposed that he was a clerk in the Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation. Deceased Rupalbhai Revlabhai was his father-in-law. He had agricultural land in village Rajpardi. His father-in-law looked after the agricultural operations, and lived on the field in a small hut. He had engaged accused Jagdishbhai Mohanbhai Vasava as labourer. Once his father-in-law had complained that Jagdishbhai Mohanbhai Vasava was not working properly. He thereafter terminated Jagdishbhai Mohanbhai Vasava from work. On 3rd March, 2008, he had gone to the village to see the land. His father-in-law looked after the agricultural operations, and lived on the field in a small hut. He had engaged accused Jagdishbhai Mohanbhai Vasava as labourer. Once his father-in-law had complained that Jagdishbhai Mohanbhai Vasava was not working properly. He thereafter terminated Jagdishbhai Mohanbhai Vasava from work. On 3rd March, 2008, he had gone to the village to see the land. In the evening at about 5 “O' clock, his father-in-law came home, and told him that the crop in the field needs irrigation, and that he would irrigate the field in the morning so that the witness could come and see it. At about 9.30 in the morning of 4th March, 2008, Jairambhai Reshambhai Vasava and his wife, therefore, went to the field, but did not find his father-in-law there. He thought that he might have gone somewhere, and waited for a day. Once again, on 5th March 2008, they came to the field, and yet did not find his father-in-law. He and his wife, therefore, inquired with the neighbours. Suspecting some foul play by accused Jagdishbhai Mohanbhai Vasava, he called him. Jagdishbhai Monanbhai Vasava was, however, non-committal, and went away saying that he would come back soon, but did not return. On 6th March, 2008, he saw some blood stains on the village road. Some fifty feet away from blood-stains, they saw soil freshly dug. On inquiry, they found the dead-body of deceased Rupalbhai Revlabhai. He, thereafter, filed his complaint before the police. 5. In the cross-examination, he stated that he first wanted to inquire with the relatives before lodging police complaint, therefore, on 4th and 5th March, 2008, no complaint was filed. 6. Mukeshbhai Rameshbhai (PW-5/Exh.23) though turned hostile, in the cross-examination by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, he agreed that in his police statement he had disclosed that he had heard Sukedavbhai Desaibhai saying that he and Jagdishbhai Mohanbhai Vasava had together killed Rupalbhai Revlabhai. We may observe at the very best, this would be the extra judicial confession by a co-accused. Secondly, it was made by Sukedavbhai Desaibhai, since deceased and not by the present accused. 7. Lakkadiabhai Mohanbhai (PW-6/Exh.24) had his own agricultural land near that of complainant Jairambhai Reshambhai Vasava, where deceased Rupalbhai Revlabhai lived. He deposed that Jagdishbhai Mohanbhai Vasava was a labourer on the field of Jairambhai Reshambhai Vasava, which was looked after by Rupalbhai Revlabhai. Secondly, it was made by Sukedavbhai Desaibhai, since deceased and not by the present accused. 7. Lakkadiabhai Mohanbhai (PW-6/Exh.24) had his own agricultural land near that of complainant Jairambhai Reshambhai Vasava, where deceased Rupalbhai Revlabhai lived. He deposed that Jagdishbhai Mohanbhai Vasava was a labourer on the field of Jairambhai Reshambhai Vasava, which was looked after by Rupalbhai Revlabhai. Since Rupalbhai Revlabhai was not happy with his work, Jagdishbhai Mohanbhai Vasava was terminated. On 3rd March, 2008, he had gone for labour work on the field of Jairambhai Reshambhai Vasava, and worked there for the whole day. He went back at 7 O' clock since he had forgotten his sweater. He did not see Rupalbhai Revlabhai in his hut at that time. 8. Savitaben Laljibhai Vasava (PW-7/Exh.25) deposed that some eight months back when she was at her house, at 12 noon, the accused Jagdishbhai Mohanbhai Vasava passed by her house, saying that he had buried Rupalbhai Revlabhai. There was no point in searching for him. In the cross-examination, she agreed that Jagdishbhai Mohanbhai Vasava is a resident of village Padwadia. She did not know what Jagdishbhai Mohanbhai Vasava was doing. She admitted that Maljipura and Malpipar are two different villages. She did not know where Jagdishbhai Mohanbhai Vasava lived, nor she know his relatives. Her husband did the work of serving waters to the officers in Canal Division. In the afternoon, she was sitting alone outside her house. 9. Dr. Dinesh Ranabhai Vasava (PW-10/Exh.35) had carried out the postmortem of the body. In the postmortem report (Exh.37), he had mentioned the following injuries: “Lacerated wound present on the occipital perital region, size 04 x 02 x 1.5 cm with dust particle present in wound. Lacerated wound present below the 02 Inch of Lt. Knee joint on the anterior surface about the size 03 x 01 x 01 cm with dust particle present on the wound. Lacerated wound present below the 2.5 Inch of Rt. Knee joint on the anterior laterial surface about the size 02 x 01 x 01 cm.” 10. Corresponding to such external injuries, he had noticed the following internal injuries: “Incomplete fracture of occipital and Lt. parietal bone about .03 cm long running obliquely downward on the Lt. side. Meninges Intact Brain soft, liquefied, converted into paste like material. Wall intact, no evidence of injury Intact, no abnormal fluid or blood collection. Corresponding to such external injuries, he had noticed the following internal injuries: “Incomplete fracture of occipital and Lt. parietal bone about .03 cm long running obliquely downward on the Lt. side. Meninges Intact Brain soft, liquefied, converted into paste like material. Wall intact, no evidence of injury Intact, no abnormal fluid or blood collection. On layer by layer dissection of neck, hyoid bone, thyroid cartilage, tracheal ring, trachea seen fracture of hyoid bone, thyroid cartilage.” 11. In his opinion, the cause of death was due to sudden cardio-respiratory arrest due to asphyxia by throttling or strangulation. He agreed, the injuries noticed by him could have been caused by beating the person with a stick. The injuries on the neck could have been caused by strangulation with the aid of dhoti. 12. As per the prosecution, the stick was discovered at the instance of the accused under panchnama (Exh.49). Under the same panchnama, allegedly the clothes wore by the accused at the time of incident were also discovered. Panch witnesses of this panchnama did not, however, support the prosecution. The panchnama (Exh.14) of Investigating Officer also does not support the prosecution. 13. Various articles collected during the course of investigation were sent for forensic analysis. The forensic report read in conjunction with Serology Report (Exh.51) establish the presence of blood of group "A" on the clothes of the accused. This in essence is the evidence on record. 14. From such evidence, it clearly emerges that the case entirely rests solely on circumstantial evidence. It is now well settled that if a case rests solely on circumstantial evidence, conviction can be recorded only if the circumstances brought on record from a complete chain so as to eliminate all the possibilities except for the guilt of the accused. In the present case, the circumstances brought on record are as follows: (1) The accused was engaged as a labourer on the field of the complainant which was looked after by the deceased. Since the deceased was unhappy with the work of the accused he was thrown out of employment. (2) After the evening of 3rd March, 2006, the deceased went missing. His dead-body was found on 6th March, 2006 buried under the ground nearby. (3) Savitaben (PW-7) referred to the so called extra-judicial confession made by the accused. (4) The medical evidence established homicidal death. (2) After the evening of 3rd March, 2006, the deceased went missing. His dead-body was found on 6th March, 2006 buried under the ground nearby. (3) Savitaben (PW-7) referred to the so called extra-judicial confession made by the accused. (4) The medical evidence established homicidal death. (5) The clothes of the accused which were discovered establish the presence of human blood of group "A." 15. In our opinion, such circumstances are insufficient to form a complete chain. Firstly, the so called extra-judicial confession, in our opinion, is wholly unreliable. By very nature of things, the extra-judicial confession is to be treated cautiously. Savitaben did not belong to the same village as that of the accused or the deceased. She did not even know the accused well. She did not know what the accused did for living or who his relatives or were or where he lived. Thus, Savitaben was not familiar with the accused. We do not see any earthly reason why the accused should have made any confession of his guilt to this witness that too by travelling to different village to make such a confession. According to Savitaben, the accused passed by her house uttering those confessional words. Entire version of this witness is extremely far fetched and completely unbelievable. The entire prosecution version of the so called extra-judicial confession is wholly unreliable. Savitaben admitted that her husband was doing the work of serving waters in the office of Canal Division. We may recall the complainant himself was a Government servant employed in the Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation. 16. Mere facts that the accused was previously engaged as a labourer, but later on terminated due to his unsatisfactory work by the deceased would not be sufficient to drive home the charge. Firstly, when he was so engaged as a labourer, and when he was terminated, has not come on the record. Complainant Jayantibhai Reshambhai Vasava though supposedly in full know of the agricultural operations carried by his father-in-law, did not refer to any period when the accused was engaged as a labourer, nor did he point out when he was terminated from such service. Complainant Jayantibhai Reshambhai Vasava though supposedly in full know of the agricultural operations carried by his father-in-law, did not refer to any period when the accused was engaged as a labourer, nor did he point out when he was terminated from such service. Lakkadiabhai Mohanbhai (PW-6/Exh.24), who himself had agricultural land in the neighbourhood, and who according to his own account had gone for labour work to the field of Jayantibhai Reshambhai Vasava on 3rd March 2006, also did not refer to the period during which the accused was engaged as a labourer, and when he was terminated. Thus, the theory of termination from employment being a motive for commission of the crime is not fully established. Interestingly, this witness Lakkadiabhai Mohanbhai stated that he went back tot he field of Jayantibhai Reshambhai Vasava in the evening of 3rd March 2006 to retrieve his sweater, which he had forgotten. In the month of March, being a beginning of summer, we wonder why this witness was carrying the sweater in the first place. His testimony, therefore, would have to be viewed rather cautiously. 17. Though Lakkadiabhai Mohanbhai (PW-6/Exh.24) did say that there was a quarrel between Rupalbhai Revlabhai Vasava and Jagdishbhai Mohanbhai Vasava about the work, this had a relevance to the time before the termination of the accused, and had no proximity to the event of disappearance of Rupalbhai Revlabhai. 18. The last seen together theory was also not established by the prosecution. None of the witnesses referred to the accused and the deceased being seen together shortly before the death of the deceased. 19. All that the prosecution, therefore, has at its command is the discovery of the clothes of the accused, which established the presence of blood of group "A." In our opinion, such circumstance in isolation could never be sufficient to convict the accused. In any case, the blood group of the deceased was not known. The prosecution did not even ascertain the group of blood of the accused to eliminate the possibility of his own blood soiling his clothes for any other reason. The cause of death is also shrouded in mystery. Though the doctor suggested that the person died due to sudden cardio-respiratory arrest due to asphyxia, however, he pointed out that the same could have been either due to throttling or strangulation. Further, he found the hyoid bones were damaged. The cause of death is also shrouded in mystery. Though the doctor suggested that the person died due to sudden cardio-respiratory arrest due to asphyxia, however, he pointed out that the same could have been either due to throttling or strangulation. Further, he found the hyoid bones were damaged. It was not even the prosecution case that the deceased died out of hanging. 20. In view of such insufficient evidence to link the accused with the commission of the offence, learned Judge committed serious error in convicting him for the offence of murder. To reiterate, the circumstances which could be relied upon by the prosecution were simply not sufficient to from a complete chain as to eliminate all other possibilities except the guilt of the accused. 21. In the result, the judgment of the Principal Sessions Judge, Bharuch dated 21st April 2009 is reversed. The conviction of the accused for offences under section 302 and section 201 of the Indian Penal Code is set aside. The appeal is allowed. He shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. Record and Proceedings be sent back to the Trial Court. Appeal Allowed.