JUDGMENT : Biswajit Mohanty, J. - In the present Jail Criminal Appeal, the appellant challenges the order of conviction dated 20.12.2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada in S.T. Case No. 1 of 2002 u/s 302, IPC and consequent sentence to undergo imprisonment for life. The prosecution case in brief is that one Sambari Ho was married to Rasika Ho (deceased). The informant (P.W. 3) is the brother of Sambari Ho. On 13.3.2001 at 5.00 P.M., the deceased came to the village of P.W. 3 and during night slept on the verandah of Bahadulla Ho (P.W. 1). At about 8.00 P.M. in the night, P.W. 1 who happens to be the uncle of P.W. 3 came to him (P.W. 3) and informed him that Rasika Ho had been murdered by an unknown person while sleeping on his verandah. P.W. 1 intimated P.W. 3 that the deceased had suffered injury on his head. P.W. 1 further informed P.W. 3 that when P.W. 1 came out from the house, he found one unknown person was running away from the spot and by that time Rasika Ho was already dead. Hearing this, the informant (P.W. 3) came to the spot and found his brother-in-law Rasika Ho in a pool of blood. He also found an injury on the head of the deceased. Accordingly, P.W. 3 lodged an F.I.R. which had been marked as Ext. 2. P.W. 13 took up the investigation. In the F.I.R., P.W. 3 also mentioned that during last Kali Puja, his sister Sambari Ho (P.W. 11) was sleeping in the house of Murgi Ho. At that time the appellant slept near her (P.W. 11). As a result there was a quarrel between the deceased and the appellant and for that the deceased assaulted the appellant. So the appellant in order to take revenge murdered the deceased. As indicated earlier on receiving the F.I.R. P.W. 13 took up the investigation and during investigation, he recorded the statement of different witnesses, seized wearing apparels of the appellant and deceased, sent the dead body for Post-Mortem Examination and also arrested the appellant and recorded his statement u/s 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Thereafter, the appellant led the police and other witnesses to near the house of Laxmi Ho (P.W. 6) where he had allegedly thrown the 'axe' (M.O. 1) after dealing blow on the head of the deceased. Thereafter, the appellant led the police and other witnesses to near the house of Laxmi Ho (P.W. 6) where he had allegedly thrown the 'axe' (M.O. 1) after dealing blow on the head of the deceased. Thereafter, the weapon of offence was seized by the police and seized articles were sent to the Forensic Laboratory for Chemical Examination. Upon completion of investigation, the police submitted the charge sheet against the appellant u/s 302, IPC. The plea of the appellant before the trial court is one of complete denial. 2. The prosecution in order to prove charges examined as many as 14 witnesses and exhibited 15 documents. The defence examined none. In examination u/s 313, Cr.P.C., the appellant completely denied the occurrence. On completion of trial, the appellant was found guilty for commission of offence punishable u/s 302, IPC and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by the learned trial court. 3. Mrs. Usharani Padhi, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned court below had gone wrong in holding out an order of conviction inasmuch as there existed many missing links in the chain of circumstantial evidence. According to her, the learned trial court has completely missed the important admission made by P.W. 1 in his cross-examination to the effect that he did not know as to who assaulted the deceased. Further according to P.W. 1 both the deceased and appellant were having good relationship. According to Mrs. Padhi the only other important witness was P.W. 4. Though P.W. 1 spoke about the presence of P.W. 4 at the spot, strangely P.W. 4 in her evidence never spoke about P.W. 1 being present at the spot. According to Mrs. Padhi since the core prosecution story as told by P.W. 1 in examination-in-chief got completely demolished in his cross-examination and since there was none to corroborate the version of P.W. 4, the primary link in the chain of circumstantial evidence did not exist. Secondly, on the issue of weapon of offence, Mrs. Padhi submitted that M.O.I. had neither been proved as weapon of offence nor any human blood was recovered from the said M.O.I. So it could not be accepted as weapon of offence. Thus, another vital link was missing out of the chain of circumstantial evidences. Thirdly, she submitted that since both P.Ws. Padhi submitted that M.O.I. had neither been proved as weapon of offence nor any human blood was recovered from the said M.O.I. So it could not be accepted as weapon of offence. Thus, another vital link was missing out of the chain of circumstantial evidences. Thirdly, she submitted that since both P.Ws. 1 and 4 deposed about good relationship between the appellant and deceased, the learned court below had gone wrong in coming to a conclusion that under the facts and circumstances motive of the appellant had been clearly established. Accordingly, she prayed that the Jail Criminal Appeal should be allowed and the appellant be set at liberty. Lastly, she submitted that the appellant has been in custody since 14.3.2001. 4. Mr. Sk. Zafrulla, learned Additional Standing Counsel vehemently defended the judgment of the learned trial court and contended that the impugned judgment did not suffer from any legal infirmity and since on a correct appreciation of facts, the judgment had been pronounced, the same required no interference by this Court. Accordingly, he prayed that the Jail Criminal Appeal be dismissed. 5. At the outset, it may be pointed out that there is no challenge to the finding of the learned trial court that death of the deceased is homicidal in nature. 6. Perused the LCR. The deceased is the husband of niece of P.W. 1. P.W. 1 stated in his evidence that the deceased came to his village to attend a marriage function and came to his house at 5 P.M. He slept near the door of the house. At about 8 P.M. P.W. 1 on hearing a sound of assault came out of the house by holding a lamp. There he found the appellant was running away by killing Rasika Ho (deceased) holding an axe and M.O.I. was that axe. Rasika Ho (deceased) sustained bleeding injuries on his head and was unable to talk. According to P.W. 1 his wife (P.W. 4) also heard the sound of assault and came with him and both had seen the incident. Both informed the brother and brother-in-law (P.W. 3) of the deceased about the incident on that night. As a consequence, P.W. 3 (informant) along with others visited the spot, in examination-in-chief, P.W. 1 also stated that previously there was a quarrel between the appellant and deceased and that he has stated all these facts before the I.O. (P.W. 13). Both informed the brother and brother-in-law (P.W. 3) of the deceased about the incident on that night. As a consequence, P.W. 3 (informant) along with others visited the spot, in examination-in-chief, P.W. 1 also stated that previously there was a quarrel between the appellant and deceased and that he has stated all these facts before the I.O. (P.W. 13). In the cross-examination, P.W. 1 has stated that the deceased had returned in a drunken state and he (P.W. 1) and his wife (P.W. 4) were sleeping in the room by closing the door, it took 10 to 15 minutes for him to come outside. During cross-examination, P.W. 1 admitted that he could not know as to who assaulted the deceased. Further in cross-examination he stated that there was no litigation between the appellant and deceased and that the deceased had good terms with the appellant. Though P.W. 1 in his deposition stated that when he came out, he found the appellant running away holding an axe (M.O.I.). However, the I.O. (P.W. 13) in his cross-examination has clearly stated that P.W. 1 never stated to him about the axe. A scanning of evidence of P.W. 1 makes it clear that the core story as given out by him in examination-in-chief stands completely demolished in his cross-examination. The evidence of P.W. 1 read with evidence of P.W. 13 as indicated above makes it clear that his version of the entire incident is highly doubtful. This is because while in examination-in-chief P.W. 1 said that after he came out from the house, he found the appellant was running away by killing Rasika Ho (deceased) holding an axe. But in cross-examination he admitted that he did not know as to who assaulted the deceased. Further the version of P.W. 1 that the appellant was running away holding an axe is highly doubtful as though in answer to the suggestion during cross-examination he reiterated his version of the appellant holding an axe while running away as having been stated before P.W. 13 by him, however, P.W. 13 in his cross-examination makes it clear that P.W. 1 never stated about the axe before him. Thus the version of P.W. 1 as to presence of the appellant with an axe at the spot becomes highly doubtful. Thus the version of P.W. 1 as to presence of the appellant with an axe at the spot becomes highly doubtful. P.W. 2 in his evidence has stated that he came to know from others that the deceased had certain quarrel with the appellant and he proved the inquest report under Ext. 1. However, in the cross-examination, he clearly stated that he has no direct knowledge regarding the quarrel between the appellant and deceased. P.W. 3 is the brother of the deceased (Rasika Ho). In examination-in-chief, he stated that P.W. 1 came to his house at about 8 P.M. and told that Rasika Ho has already been killed by the appellant. On hearing this, he along with P.W. 10 came to the house of P.W. 1 and saw the dead body of Rasika Ho. He further stated that previously during Kali Puja time the appellant was found sleeping near P.W. 11 for which the deceased had abused the appellant. The appellant accordingly had grudge against the deceased. P.W. 3 proved the F.I.R. under Ext. 2. In the cross-examination P.W. 3 denied a suggestion that he had not stated before the I.O. (P.W. 13) that P.W. 1 had informed him regarding the appellant, who caused murder of the deceased. But this has little value after P.W. 1 in the cross-examination has clearly stated that he could not know as to who assaulted the deceased. In the cross-examination, he also admitted that there was no case between the appellant and the deceased. P.W. 4 is the wife of P.W. 1. In her examination-in-chief she stated that when she heard the sound of assault she came from the house by holding a lamp and saw that the appellant was going away by killing the deceased. She found the appellant holding an axe while running away from the spot. She also stated that previously the appellant had certain grudge against the deceased. In the cross-examination she denied a suggestion that she had not stated to the I.O. (P.W. 13) that she saw the appellant running away with the help of a lamp. However, she admitted that the appellant and the deceased were in good terms. P.W. 5 in examination-in-chief has stated that the appellant was arrested by the police and he went with the police to the house of Laxmi Ho (P.W. 6) and P.W. 5 accompanied them. However, she admitted that the appellant and the deceased were in good terms. P.W. 5 in examination-in-chief has stated that the appellant was arrested by the police and he went with the police to the house of Laxmi Ho (P.W. 6) and P.W. 5 accompanied them. He further stated that the appellant disclosed that he "concealed" the axe in the house of P.W. 6 and P.W. 6 produced that axe and the police seized it in his presence. He proved the seizure list under Ext. 3 and proved/identified the axe as M.O.I. In cross-examination, he admitted that it was Laxmi Ho (P.W. 6), who produced M.O.I. before the police. P.W. 6 in her examination-in-chief has stated that she found an axe lying near her house. She brought that axe and kept the same on her verandah. The police and appellant came to her house and the appellant asked her for the axe. M.O.I. was that axe and she gave M.O.I. to the police as instructed by the appellant. In her cross-examination she has stated that the axe was lying at the side of the road. Many people used to go on that road. She found the axe in the morning. The police came to her house at about noon when the appellant asked her for the axe she gave the same to the police. An analysis of the evidences of P.Ws. 5 and 6 would show that while P.W. 5 stated that the appellant told that he concealed the axe in the house of Laxmi Ho (P.W. 6). However, P.W. 6 in her evidence stated that the axe was lying near her house and she brought it to her verandah and when the police and the appellant came to her house and the appellant asked for the axe, P.W. 6 handed over to the police. Thus one thing is clear that the axe was never recovered from a hidden place as the same was never concealed. The axe which was seized was lying on the road side and many people have had access to that road. Secondly, it may be noted here that as it appears that prior to the discovery at the instance of the appellant; P.W. 6 had already discovered that axe lying on the road and brought it to her verandah. This cannot be described as a recovery in order to make statements made under Ext. Secondly, it may be noted here that as it appears that prior to the discovery at the instance of the appellant; P.W. 6 had already discovered that axe lying on the road and brought it to her verandah. This cannot be described as a recovery in order to make statements made under Ext. 8 admissible u/s 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. P.W. 7 like P.W. 2 proved the inquest report. P.W. 8, who was a Ward Member, in his examination-in-chief stated that he went to the spot when P.W. 3 and another went to call him. The police held inquest over the dead body and he signed on the Inquest Report. Next day the police went with the appellant to the house of P.W. 6 and he accompanied them. According to him, the appellant told to show the axe and he along with others went to the house of Laxmi Ho (P.W. 6) where P.W. 6 told that the axe was lying at the side of her house and she had kept the same. In cross-examination P.W. 8 admitted that the police brought the axe (M.O.I.) from Laxmi Ho (P.W. 6). In the cross-examination also he faintly referred to the appellant telling the police about the enmity with himself. P.W. 9 in examination-in-chief has stated that while returning from weekly market at about 9 P.M., he found a person near a fallow land. He enquired about the identity of that person as he was in doubt whether the person was the appellant or some body else. In the cross-examination he has stated that it is the fact that he has not stated to the I.O. that he saw the appellant on the way while returning from the weekly market. P.W. 10 in examination-in-chief has deposed that the appellant gave his statement before the police stating about the disposal of the axe used in the commission of murder. The appellant led the police and P.W. 10 to the house of P.W. 6. According to P.W. 10 the appellant told that he threw away the axe near the house of Laxmi Ho (P.W. 6) and Laxmi Ho brought out the axe and handed over the same to the police. He further stated that he cannot identify the axe now. The appellant led the police and P.W. 10 to the house of P.W. 6. According to P.W. 10 the appellant told that he threw away the axe near the house of Laxmi Ho (P.W. 6) and Laxmi Ho brought out the axe and handed over the same to the police. He further stated that he cannot identify the axe now. P.W. 10 also stated that P.W. 6 came outside the house when police arrived with the appellant near her house and voluntarily told that she has got the axe and she has kept it in her house. It may be noted here that P.W. 6 in her evidence has stated that she kept the axe on the verandah of her house. In the cross-examination, P.W. 10 has admitted that he has not gone with the police. This totally demolishes the statement made by P.W. 10 in examination-in-chief relating to recovery of axe. P.W. 11 is the wife of the deceased. In her examination-in-chief, she stated that only on next morning of occurrence, she came to know that the appellant had already killed her husband and she could not see the dead body of her husband as it had been shifted to the hospital. Further in examination-in-chief, she stated that once the appellant after chewing tobacco slept near her for which her husband picked up a quarrel with the appellant and assaulted him. So the appellant had a grudge against her deceased husband. However, in her cross-examination, she admitted that there was no case when her husband had assaulted the appellant. P.W. 12 has proved the seizure list under Ext. 5 by which seizure of wearing apparels of the appellant was noted. P.W. 13 is the I.O., who in examination-in-chief has stated that he took charge of investigation and examined the witnesses, visited the spot, prepared the spot map, conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and sent the dead body for Post-Mortem Examination. He arrested the accused and recorded his statement u/s 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. He proved the statement under Ext. 8. He also seized the axe (M.O.I.) and proved the seizure of wearing apparels and other seizures. He received the opinion of P.W. 14 regarding examination of weapon. He also proved Chemical Examination report under Ext. 13 and Serologist's Report under Ext. 14. He proved the statement under Ext. 8. He also seized the axe (M.O.I.) and proved the seizure of wearing apparels and other seizures. He received the opinion of P.W. 14 regarding examination of weapon. He also proved Chemical Examination report under Ext. 13 and Serologist's Report under Ext. 14. In his cross-examination, he has stated that P.W. 1 has stated before him that the appellant was fleeing from the spot and P.W. 1 never stated before him about the axe (M.O.I.). He further stated that P.W. 4 stated before him that blood was coming out of the head of the deceased and that the appellant was found running from the spot. He also deposed that he does not have any document regarding the previous enmity obviously between the appellant and the deceased. P.W. 14 is the Doctor who conducted Post-Mortem examination. In his examination-in-chief after giving the details of external and external injuries he has stated that the cause of death was due to extensive laceration of the brain. All the injuries were ante-mortem in nature. He further stated that cause of injury Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 was assault by hard and blunt object and injury No. 7 was possible by sharp cutting heavy weapon. These were possible to cause death in ordinary course of nature. He proved the Post-Mortem report under Ext. 14. He further opined that the injuries mentioned in the Post-Mortem report might have been caused by the weapon of offence, i.e., M.O.I. This opinion is contained in Ext. 10/1. In the cross-examination, he has also stated that single injury he observed on the head of the deceased was fatal and the same was possible by one stroke only. Such injury is not possible by accidental fall. 7. In an analysis of the above evidences, it is clear that there exists no eye-witnesses to the occurrence and the case is based on only circumstantial evidence. Before going further let us remind ourselves of the parameters delineated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court with regard to appreciation of circumstantial evidence in case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra. In an analysis of the above evidences, it is clear that there exists no eye-witnesses to the occurrence and the case is based on only circumstantial evidence. Before going further let us remind ourselves of the parameters delineated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court with regard to appreciation of circumstantial evidence in case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra. The principles are as follows: (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established, as distinguished from 'may be' established; (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. 8. Now we have to examine whether the prosecution has been able to make out a case under the above noted parameters so as to warrant conviction of the appellant u/s 302, IPC. 9. As indicated earlier the main witnesses in the present case are P.Ws. 1 and 4, who happen to be close relations of the deceased. Therefore, scanning of their evidences has to be done with a bit of caution. The evidence of P.W. 1 with regard to core story as has been given by him in examination-in-chief has been totally demolished in the cross-examination. While in examination-in-chief he named the appellant; in cross-examination he admits that he could not know who assaulted the deceased. This vital piece of admission has been ignored by the learned court below. Similarly his version of appellant running away with an axe is doubtful as he never gave such a version before the I.O. In fact, the I.O. (P.W. 13) in his cross-examination has clearly stated that P.W. 1 never stated about the axe before him. Only circumstantial evidence that can be gathered from the evidence of P.W. 1 is that when he came out from his house he has seen the appellant running away from the spot. Only circumstantial evidence that can be gathered from the evidence of P.W. 1 is that when he came out from his house he has seen the appellant running away from the spot. Further while in examination-in-chief P.W. 1 speaks about the quarrel between the appellant and the deceased as a passing statement, however, in cross-examination, he has admitted that both the appellant and deceased had good relations and there was no litigation between them. Though P.W. 4 has also stated that while she came out from the house she saw the appellant going away by killing the deceased holding the axe (M.O.I.). However, after demolition of the core prosecution story of P.W. 1, such story of P.W. 4 remains uncorroborated. Further though P.W. 1, who happens to be her husband refers to her presence in his deposition, however, P.W. 2 nowhere indicates about the presence of her husband (P.W. 1) at the spot. This makes her evidence relating to the core prosecution story doubtful. It may be noted here that P.W. 1 in his cross-examination has stated that both he and P.W. 2 were sleeping by closing the door and it took 10 to 15 minutes to come to outside. All these throw a cloud of doubt on the version of the core story as put forward by P.Ws. 1 and 4. Lastly, P.W. 4 while pointing out that the appellant had certain grudge with the deceased in her examination-in-chief has also admitted about the good relationship between appellant and deceased in her cross-examination. Thus the evidence of P.W. 4 reflects a major contradiction in her evidence. For all these reasons, the evidence of P.W. 4 does not inspire confidence. Thus, once the version of P.Ws. 1 and 4 are disbelieved, a major chain in the link of circumstantial evidence gets snapped. 10. Coming to the question of motive, it may be noted here that while P.W. 1 makes a vague statement that there was an earlier quarrel between the appellant and deceased, however in cross-examination he has stated that both the appellant and deceased were in good terms. There was no litigation between them. P.W. 2 while in examination-in-chief stated that he came to know from others that there are some quarrel between the appellant and deceased. However, in the cross-examination he has stated that he has direct knowledge regarding the quarrel. There was no litigation between them. P.W. 2 while in examination-in-chief stated that he came to know from others that there are some quarrel between the appellant and deceased. However, in the cross-examination he has stated that he has direct knowledge regarding the quarrel. P.W. 3 who happens to be the brother-in-law of the deceased though refers to an incident happening in the last Kali Puja, however, in cross-examination, he has admitted that there was no case between the appellant and deceased. Similarly P.W. 4, who is a relation of the deceased, while in examination-in-chief has stated about certain previous grudge of the appellant against the deceased, however, in cross-examination she has admitted that the appellant and the deceased were in good terms. P.W. 8 in his cross-examination states about the appellant having enmity with himself. P.W. 11 is the wife of the deceased. Though in examination-in-chief she speaks of quarrel and the appellant bearing a grudge against her husband, however, in cross-examination, she admitted that there was no case when the deceased assaulted the appellant. In such background, it may be noted here that while P.Ws. 1 and 4 in their cross-examination have clearly admitted about the good relationship between the appellant and the deceased, P.Ws. 3 and 11 have admitted that there was no case pending between the appellant and deceased. P.W. 13 in cross-examination also stated that he does not have any document regarding previous enmity between the appellant and deceased. In such state of affairs, the learned court below has gone wrong in coming to a conclusion that there was enough proof of motive for the appellant to commit murder of the deceased. 11. So far as the issue of leading to discovery is concerned, it is reiterated here that the information on that issue received from appellant as under Ext. 8 cannot be made admissible u/s 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Under Ext. 8, it is clear that the statement of the appellant is that he threw away the weapon of offence near the fence of the house of P.W. 6. P.W. 5 in his statement has stated that the appellant told that he concealed the axe in the house of P.W. 6. The same is not true in view of the statement of the appellant under Ext. 8. P.W. 5 in his statement has stated that the appellant told that he concealed the axe in the house of P.W. 6. The same is not true in view of the statement of the appellant under Ext. 8. Besides as per the version of P.W. 6, M.O.I. was lying near her house and she picked it up and kept on her verandah. In cross-examination she admitted that M.O.I. was lying at the side of the road and many people used to go on that road. When the appellant asked for the axe, she gave the said axe to the police. P.W. 8 also stated that when the police visited the house of P.W. 6 she told that the axe was lying outside of her house and she had kept the same. The version of P.W. 10 in this aspect cannot be believed as he has admitted that he has not gone with the police. P.W. 13 in examination-in-chief has stated that the appellant led him to the spot where he gave recovery of the axe. 'Spot' ordinarily means the spot as indicated under Ext. 8. A cumulative assessment of evidences of P.Ws. 6, 8, 10 and 13 read with Ext. 8 would show that the weapon of offence was never concealed and was never recovered/discovered from the spot as indicated under Ext. 8. It was clearly lying outside on the public road and was picked up by P.W. 6, who ultimately handed over the same to the police. Thus, prior to being discovered at the instance of the appellant at the spot earmarked by him, the same has been discovered by P.W. 6, who had taken it to her house. Under such circumstances, in our considered opinion, the statement under Ext. 8 cannot be made admissible u/s 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. In the case of AIR 1947 67 (Privy Council), it has been made clear that it is fallacious to treat the "fact discovered" within the section as equivalent to the object produced; the fact discovered embraces the place from which the object is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this, and the information given must relate distinctly to this fact. In the instant case, the weapon of offence was not discovered from the place as indicated by the appellant, but the same was produced by P.W. 6 from her house. In the instant case, the weapon of offence was not discovered from the place as indicated by the appellant, but the same was produced by P.W. 6 from her house. Further, the above discussion would show that the weapon of offence was lying on a public road and was never concealed anywhere. Further, though M.O.I. was stained with blood, there is no evidence to show that whether the blood was human blood. Therefore, it is unsafe to rely on any part of the statement made under Ext. 8 for the purpose of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. When the core prosecution story has no legs to stand, proof of seizures, Chemical Examination Report, Post-Mortem Examination Report, etc. are of little value. 12. Thus, for all the above noted reasons, it cannot be said that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In fact they have not been able to prove the chain of circumstances as required under law to show that it is only the appellant and the appellant alone who is author of the crime and none else. For all the reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt and the learned court below has gone wrong in convicting the appellant u/s 302, IPC. In the result, the judgment dated 20.12.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada in ST. No. 1 of 2002 is set aside. The appellant is directed to be set at liberty if his detention is not required in any other criminal case. The Jail Criminal Appeal is accordingly allowed. Final Result : Allowed