JUDGMENT BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA) 1. These two appeals filed at the instance of the two accused persons are directed against the selfsame order of conviction and consequent sentence dated 20th May 2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Chhotaudaipur, Dist. Vadodara in Sessions Case No. 41 of 2008 by which the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused No.1 for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.100/-with a further stipulation that in default of payment of fine, the accused No.1 shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. By the selfsame judgment, the learned Sessions Judge also convicted the accused No.1 for the offence punishable under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and a fine of Rs.100/-, with a further condition that in case of default of payment of fine, the accused No.1 would undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. As regards the accused No.2, the learned Sessions convicted him for the offence punishable under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs.100/-with a condition that in default of payment of fine, he would undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. The translated version of the charges framed against the accused persons are quoted below: “At 21 : 00 Hrs. on 10-04-2008, you the accused no.1, Chimanbhai Bhuliyabhai Naayaka made altercation with your wife, the deceased Nankiben being suspicious that she had illicit relations, and consequently, strangulated the deceased Nankiben with a view to cause her murder, caught hold the hairs of the deceased Nankiben and collided with the stone on the land, caught hold the hairs of deceased and made her to fall down on floor and had given two-three kicks on her chest, the dead-body of the deceased Nankiben was hidden in the toilet with the help of you the accused no.2, Kaljeebhai Ravjibhai. Thereafter, the dead-body was carried out and thrown out in the flowing water of the canal and destroyed the evidence. Thereafter, the dead-body was carried out and thrown out in the flowing water of the canal and destroyed the evidence. Thereby, both you the accused persons have committed an offence in collusion of each other punishable under section 302, 201 read with section 114 of Indian Penal Code within the jurisdiction of the said court. As you committed the aforesaid offences within the jurisdiction of the said court, I pass the order to conduct the trial of the said offence in this court.” 3. The case made out by the prosecution may be summed up thus: 3.1 On 10th April 2008, at 21-00 Hours, at village Uchapan, the accused no. 1, Chimanbhai Bhuliyabhai Nayaka, based on suspicion of illicit relation of his wife, Nanakiben, made an altercation with her, and by holding her hairs of head, knocked her down on ground and by giving two-three kicks on her chest and holding her hairs and hitting with the stone on the ground and by strangulating her, caused her death and with the aid of the accused no. 2, Kaljibhai Ravjibhai Nayaka, hid the dead-body of Nanakiben in toilet and with the help of the accused no. 2 Kaljibhai Ravjibhai Nayaka, lifted her dead-body and threw it into the flowing water of canal and has thus also committed the offence of destroying evidence. 3.2 A complaint in this regard was lodged before the police by the accused No.2 himself. 3.3 During investigation, the accused were apprehended and after completion of the formalities, the charges were filed against the accused persons in the Court of JMFC, Chhota Udepur and as the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. 3.4 The accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined the following witnesses in support of the prosecution case. Sr. No. Name PW No. Exh.No. 1 Gopaldas Ladhabhai Savsani (Scientific Officer) PW. 1 Exh. 9 2 Purushottamdas Laljibhai Bariya(Circle Inspector) PW. 2 Exh. 12 3 Haidarbhai Kesarbhai Nayak (A person of the locality who became hostile) PW. 3 Exh. 16 4 Kantibhai Jitabhai (A local person who became hostile) PW. 4 Exh. 17 5 Amarsing Jesingbhai (Hostile panch witness) PW. 5 Exh. 18 6 Jemabhai Shanabhai (Hostile Panch witness) PW. 6 Exh. 1 Exh. 9 2 Purushottamdas Laljibhai Bariya(Circle Inspector) PW. 2 Exh. 12 3 Haidarbhai Kesarbhai Nayak (A person of the locality who became hostile) PW. 3 Exh. 16 4 Kantibhai Jitabhai (A local person who became hostile) PW. 4 Exh. 17 5 Amarsing Jesingbhai (Hostile panch witness) PW. 5 Exh. 18 6 Jemabhai Shanabhai (Hostile Panch witness) PW. 6 Exh. 19 7 Sanjaybhai Rimabhai (A person of the locality who allegedly has taken out the dead-body from the canal and became hostile) PW. 7 Exh. 20 8 Thiganbhai Shaniyabhai (A local person who allegedly had taken out the dead-body from the canal and became hostile) PW. 8 Exh. 21 9 Dr. Nilkamal Devkumar Sing (Doctor who performed postmortem) PW. 9 Exh. 22 10 Laxmansinh Jashwantsinh Vaghela (Investigating officer) PW. 10 Exh. 29 3.5 The prosecution has also produced the following pieces of documentary evidences:- Sr. No. Particular Exh.No. 1 Office copy of the letter written to F.S.L. for giving guidance after examining the place of offence. Exh.10 2 Primary report of F.S.L. Inve. VanExh.113Office copy of the yadi written for preparing map of place of offence. Exh.13 4 Map of place of offence in original Exh.14 5 Inquest panchnama Exh.15 6 Office copy of post-mortem form Exh.26 7 Office copy of the yadi for conducting P.M. Exh.27 8 P.M. Note in original Exh.28 9 Complaint of the complainant Exh.30 10 Report of registering the complaint Exh.31/1 11 Report of registering the complaint Exh.31/2 12 Office copy of special report Exh.32 13 Yadi for Inquest Exh.33 14 Panchnama of physical condition of the accused persons Exh.34 15 Panchnama of place of offence Exh.35 16 Panchnama of seizing clothes on the dead-body Exh.36 17 Despatch note in respect of sending muddamal to F.S.L. for examination. Exh.37 18 Despatch note in respect of sending muddamal to F.S.L. for examination. Exh.38 19 Receipt in original in respect of receiving muddamal by F.S.L. Exh.39 20 Yadi in original in respect of taking muddamal from the office of F.S.L.Exh.4021Muddamal examination report of F.S.L., Vadodara. Exh.41 21 Muddamal examination report of F.S.L., Vadodara. Exh.41 22 Muddamal examination report of F.S.L., Surat. Exh.42 23 Muddamal examination report of F.S.L., Surat. Exh.43 24 Written pursis Bearing signature of learned A.P.P. Of closing oral and documentary evidence of the Prosecution. Exh.41 21 Muddamal examination report of F.S.L., Vadodara. Exh.41 22 Muddamal examination report of F.S.L., Surat. Exh.42 23 Muddamal examination report of F.S.L., Surat. Exh.43 24 Written pursis Bearing signature of learned A.P.P. Of closing oral and documentary evidence of the Prosecution. Exh.44 3.6 After conclusion of the evidence of the prosecution, the statements of the accused persons under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded wherein they have denied the allegations levelled against them and stated that they were innocent and had not committed any offence but had been falsely implicated in the crime. However, the accused did not produce any evidence in support of their defence. 3/7 As indicated earlier, the learned Sessions Judge, by the order impugned in these appeals, found the accused No. 1 guilty of the offence punishable under sections 302, 201 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and the accused No. 2 was found guilty of the offence punishable under sections 201 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them as stated hereinabove. 4. Being dissatisfied, the convicted persons have preferred these two separate appeals which were heard analogously. 5. Mr. Barot, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants vehemently contended before us that the learned Sessions Judge committed substantial error of law in convicting the accused No.1 solely on the basis of the alleged extra-judicial confession made by him before the accused No.2 although neither the motive has been proved nor is there any other evidence, either direct or circumstantial, justifying the conclusion of the guilt of the accused No.1. Mr. Barot further contends that as regards the conviction of the accused No.2 is concerned, who has been found to be guilty for the offence punishable under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, same also cannot be sustained in view of the fact that his conviction is based on his confession made in the FIR lodged by him before the police which is totally inadmissible in evidence under section 25 of the Evidence Act. Mr. Barot laboriously contended before us that there is no other evidence, either direct or circumstantial, justifying the findings of the learned Sessions Judge. Mr. Barot, therefore, prays for setting aside the order of conviction and consequent sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge. 6. Ms. Mr. Barot laboriously contended before us that there is no other evidence, either direct or circumstantial, justifying the findings of the learned Sessions Judge. Mr. Barot, therefore, prays for setting aside the order of conviction and consequent sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge. 6. Ms. Chetna Shah, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on the behalf of the Prosecution, has, on the other hand, supported the order of conviction and has contended that the fact that the appellant No.1 did not lodge any complaint before the police although the deceased, his wife, was not traceable for 3 days itself indicates the guilt of the appellant No.1. Ms. Shah contends that the accused No.1 and the deceased being husband and wife by relation and as they used to stay in the same house, the conduct of the appellant No.1 itself suggests that he was guilty of the offences of murder and the one punishable under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. So far as the accused No.2 is concerned, according to Ms. Shah, even if we exclude the confession of the accused No.2 reflected in his FIR, from the facts of the present case, there is no reason why a clear case for the offence punishable under section 201 at the instance of the accused No.2 should not be upheld. Ms. Shah, therefore, prays for dismissal of both the appeals. 7. Therefore, the only question that arises for determination in these appeals is whether the learned Sessions Judge, in the facts of the present case, was justified in passing the order of conviction mentioned earlier. 8. Before we proceed further to decide the aforesaid question, it will be appropriate to refer to the depositions of the prosecution witnesses as indicated below: 9. PW. No. 1 is Gopaldas Ladhabhai Savsani, who was working as a Scientific Officer with Forensic Science Laboratory. In his examination-in-chief, he has stated that he was performing his duty as Scientific Officer in FSL Department at Vadodara. He received a yadi from PSI of Jetpur-Pavi Police Station on 14th April 2008 to visit the place of offence in connection with the offence registered as Ist CR No. 34/08 of Jetpur Pavi Police Station and give necessary guidance. He has proved the yadi. He received a yadi from PSI of Jetpur-Pavi Police Station on 14th April 2008 to visit the place of offence in connection with the offence registered as Ist CR No. 34/08 of Jetpur Pavi Police Station and give necessary guidance. He has proved the yadi. 9.1 This witness has stated that after receiving the yadi, he visited the local place at the front part of the house of Chiman Bhuriya Nayak in Uchapan village of Jetpur Pavi Taluka and after visiting the place he had given necessary direction to PSI Jetpur Pavi for investigation. He prepared this direction report in his own handwriting and has written his designation after making his signature and he has proved the said direction report. 9.2 In the cross-examination of this witness by the learned advocate for the accused, this witness had stated that he had visited the place on 14th April 2008. He has admitted that he had visited the place from 3-15 to 4-00 hrs. He has also admitted that he had given instruction to the Investigating Officer to seize the clothes worn by the deceased and the accused at the time of incident and he had also given instruction to the Investigating Officer to collect control blood. This witness has stated that he was not able to state the fact that he had not seen any signs of incident at the place. 10. PW No.2, Purshottambha Laljibha Bariya, has, in his examination-in-chief stated that while he was performing his duty as Circle Inspector in Panchayat office, Jetpur, his office received a yadi from PSI, Jetpur Pavi Police Station on 12th June 2008, in which they were informed that a map has to be prepared for the place of offence in the case of Ist C.R. no. 34/08 of Jetpur Pavi Police Station. He has proved the yadi. A copy of panchnama of place of offence was also enclosed with that yadi. 10.1 This witness has stated that after receiving that yadi, he had visited the place of offence. The place was compared with the panchnama of place of offence that he had received and thereafter, after seeing the site of place of offence, he had prepared the map as per the site. He has given the required explanation in the map. 10.1 This witness has stated that after receiving that yadi, he had visited the place of offence. The place was compared with the panchnama of place of offence that he had received and thereafter, after seeing the site of place of offence, he had prepared the map as per the site. He has given the required explanation in the map. Open house of the accused Nayaka Chiman Bhuriya has been shown in the map and the place of offence is shown near to it; earlier there was a stone at the place of offence. 10.2 This witness has stated that he prepared the map of the place of offence in his handwriting and he put his designation therein after making his signature. He has proved the said map. 10.3 In the cross-examination of this witness by the learned advocate for the accused, this witness has stated that he had not seen the place previously before he went to the place to prepare map and he did not know the accused. He has admitted that the names of owners of the place mentioned in their office record with the respective survey numbers, are not mentioned and it is also not mentioned as to who reside in those houses. 10.4 This witness has further admitted that in the map that was prepared, the distance from the house of the accused to the trees and stone indicated therein was not mentioned. He has also admitted that it is also not mentioned in the map of Exh-14 as to what radius the map is prepared. This witness has denied that he prepared the map of the place of incident according to the panchnama of place of offence given to him by the Investigating Officer. He has also denied that he prepared the map by sitting in the office without going to the place. He has admitted that he has not mentioned in the map as to the distance between the house of the accused, the room of Rathwa Kanchanbhai Kantibhai and his toilet. 11. PW. No. 3, Haidarbhai Kesarbhai Nayak, in his examination-in-chief has stated that he was a resident of Uchapan village. He knew Chimanbhai Bhuriyabhai of their village. He did not know as to what the name of his wife was and whether his wife had died. 11. PW. No. 3, Haidarbhai Kesarbhai Nayak, in his examination-in-chief has stated that he was a resident of Uchapan village. He knew Chimanbhai Bhuriyabhai of their village. He did not know as to what the name of his wife was and whether his wife had died. 11.1 This witness has stated that Chimanbhai Bhuriyabhai did not come to him after the incident and did not meet him. He did not tell him about the death of his wife. He did not know about the death of Nanki, the wife of Chimanbhai Bhuriyabhai, and as to how she has died. 11.2 This witness has further stated that the police had recorded his statement after inquiry. He did not know anything further with respect to the incident. 11.3 This witness was declared hostile, and he was permitted to be cross-examined by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 11.2 This witness has further stated that the police had recorded his statement after inquiry. He did not know anything further with respect to the incident. 11.3 This witness was declared hostile, and he was permitted to be cross-examined by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. In his cross-examination, he has denied that he had dictated in his statement before the police dated 13th April 2008 that on 11th April 2008, he had gone to sleep after eating at night, or that at that time, Chimanbhai Bhuriya of their village came to him at about three hours at night, woke him up and told him to come with him, or that this witness asked him as to where they have to go and he was replied to come out and he would tell him about it, or that they both came out and Chimanbhai told him that he had killed his wife, Nankiben, at about nine hours in the night, as he had doubt on her about illicit relationship and as the husband and wife had an altercation, he got angry and threw her down with her hair of head and gave two to three kicks in her chest and dashed her head with the stone on the ground by catching her hairs of head and killed her by strangulating her throat or that this witness was asked to come with him, or that he did not go with him, or that thereafter Chimanbhai went away from his house but he had come to know later that on 11th April 2008, in collusion with Kalji Ravji Nayka who was doing the work of Balva in their village, the dead-body of this Nankiben was kept in the toilet situated beside the room of Chimanbhai and the door of the toilet was closed, or that when it was dark, at about eight hrs in the night, they carried the dead-body of Nankiben in a bundle made with sari and brought it near the canal and Chiman Bhuriya Nayka threw the dead-body in the running water of canal. 11.4 This witness has denied that he was giving a false deposition to save the accused. 11.5 In the cross-examination of this witness by the learned advocate for the accused, this witness has admitted that he used to go to Kutchchh since years with his family to do agricultural labour. 11.4 This witness has denied that he was giving a false deposition to save the accused. 11.5 In the cross-examination of this witness by the learned advocate for the accused, this witness has admitted that he used to go to Kutchchh since years with his family to do agricultural labour. He has also admitted that he and his family came to Uchapan village for about once in a year from Kutchchh during festival. 12. PW. No. 4, Kantibhai Jitabhai, in his examination-in-chief has stated that he was a resident of Uchapan village and he was doing job on canal of Sukhi Dam. The time of his job was from 8 hrs in the morning to 6 hrs in the evening. 12.1 This witness has further stated that he did not come to know any fact when he came on duty during the time on 13th April 2008 and he did not see anything in the canal. The police had come to the place where he was performing his duty for investigation but he did not know as to what the police was investigating. 12.2 This witness has further stated that the police had interrogated him, but he was not present at that time and he did not know as to for what the police had interrogated him. He did not know any fact with respect to interrogation of police. 12.3 This witness was also declared as hostile and he was permitted to be cross examined by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. In his cross-examination, he has denied that he had seen a dead-body of a woman near the gate No.4 of Sukhi Canal. He had come to know that a dead-body was taken out but he did not know as to whose body it was. He did not know Kalji Ravji. This witness has stated that he knew Chiman and he was doing work of barber in their faliya but he did not know the name of his wife. He did not know whether his wife was alive or not. 12.4 This witness has further denied that he had dictated in his police statement dated 13th April 2008 that on that date, when he came on his duty at about eight hours in the morning, he had come to know from hearsay that the dead-body of wife of Chiman Bhuriya Nayak, viz. 12.4 This witness has further denied that he had dictated in his police statement dated 13th April 2008 that on that date, when he came on his duty at about eight hours in the morning, he had come to know from hearsay that the dead-body of wife of Chiman Bhuriya Nayak, viz. Nankiben, was there in the water of canal and police has also reached, or that he had gone to see and when he saw the dead-body of Nankiben, there were maggots in the head, the eyes were closed and the tongue had come out from the mouth, the teeth were seen, the face was swollen; or that there was injury on the left eyebrow, or that a string of nadachadi and black string were tied on the neck or that the chest part had got swollen and had become reddish, or that skin was slightly bruised near the tip of right ear and it was reddish, or that skin had also come out on the back part and it had become white, or that thereafter, he had come to know later that on last 10th April 2008 at about nine hours in the night, this Chimanbhai having suspected Nankiben of illicit relationship, had altercation with her and threw her down with the hairs of head, kicked in the chest part and dashed the head of Nankiben with a stone on the ground by catching her with the hairs and killed her by strangulating her throat, or that he had come to know the fact later on that on 11th April 2008, in collusion with Kalji Ravji Nayka who was doing the work of Balva in their village, the dead-body of this Nankiben was kept in the toilet situated beside the room of Chimanbhai and the door of the toilet was closed, or that when it was dark, at about eight hrs in the night, they carried the dead-body of Nankiben in a bundle made with sari and brought it near the canal and Chiman Bhuriya Nayka threw the dead-body in the running water of canal. 12.5 This witness has denied that as the accused was from his village, he was giving false deposition to save him. 12.6 This witness was not cross-examined by the learned advocate for the accused. 13. PW. 12.5 This witness has denied that as the accused was from his village, he was giving false deposition to save him. 12.6 This witness was not cross-examined by the learned advocate for the accused. 13. PW. No. 5, Amarsingbhai Jesingbhai, in his examination-in-chief has stated that he was called on 13th April 2008 by the police to prepare panchnama. He was called from his house. Jemabhai was with him as the other pancha. There were no other persons present there, except the panchas and the police personnel. He did not know as to of what the panchnama was for. As he was told to make signature, he had done it. He has identified his signature in the panchnama. He has stated that when the panchnama of mark 8/9 was drawn, the police did not seize any article in his presence. 13.1 This witness has further stated that he did know as to what was the panchnama about the time when he was called on 13th April 2008 by the police for the second time as pancha. The panchas did not go to the house of any person with the police personnel. He has identified his signature thereon. 13.2 This witness has stated that on the same day, i.e., on 13th April 2008, he was called again by the police as pancha. No article was seized in their presence while preparing that panchnama and the police has not seized anything in their presence as per the details of the panchnama. He has identified his signature thereon. He did not know anything other than this with respect to the panchanamas. 13.3 This witness was also declared hostile and the learned APP was granted permission to cross-examine him. In his cross examination he has denied that when he was called as pancha on 13th April 2008 in the evening at 5-00 hrs by the police, Chimanbhai Bhuriyabhai Nayak and Kalji Ravji Nayak of their village were present before them, the panchas, and the clothes worn by them were seized by the police as per the details of the panchnama and they had made their signatures thereon. 13.4 This witness has further denied that when they were called as panchas on 13th April 2008 in the evening at 6.35 hrs, Chiman Bhuriya of their village was present and he had willingly stated to show the place of offence committed by him or that he had shown a stone lying below the pendal of his house and stated that he dashed the head of his wife on this stone by catching her hair, or that the police had seized that stone in their presence as per the details of the panchnama, or that thereafter, the accused stated in their presence that after killing his wife, with the help of Kalji Raiji, he threw her in canal by making bundle of sari, or that he also stated that first the accused kept the dead-body in the toilet with the help of Kalji Raiji and panchnama in that respect was drawn by the police before them. This witness has also denied that thereafter, Chiman Bhuriya showed the place where they went to throw the dead-body in canal by placing it in a bundle and the police drew panchnama in that respect. This witness has also denied that the police seized the sari produced by him as per the details of the panchnama. 13.5 This witness has further denied that when he was called as pancha on 13th April 2008, the police personnel, Chandrasinh, had brought the clothes of the deceased Nankiben and those clothes were seized before the panchas by the police as per the details of the panchnama. 13.6 This witness has further denied that as the accused persons are from his village, he was giving false deposition to save them. 14. PW. No. 6, Jemabhai Shanabhai, in his examination-in-chief has stated that he was called on 13th April 2008 at 5-00 hrs in the evening by the police to prepare panchnama. Amarsingbhai was with him as the other pancha. As the police told him to make his thumb impression, he had put his thumb impression. He has identified his thumb impression thereon. He has stated that when the panchnama of mark 8/9 was drawn, there were no other persons present there except the panchas and the police personnels and when they had been called to prepare the panchnama, nothing was seized by the police before them. He has identified his thumb impression thereon. He has stated that when the panchnama of mark 8/9 was drawn, there were no other persons present there except the panchas and the police personnels and when they had been called to prepare the panchnama, nothing was seized by the police before them. 14.1 This witness has further stated that when he was called by the police for the second panchnama, he did not go anywhere with any person and no person has taken them anywhere nor has the police seized any article from that place. He has identified his thumb impression in panchnama mark-8/10. 14.2 This witness has further stated that when they were called to draw panchnama on 13th April 2008, no person had brought any article before the panchas and that the police did not seize that before them as per the details of the panchnama. He has identified his thumb impression in the panchnama of mark-8/14. 14.3 This witness has further stated that he did not know any other fact with respect to the panchanamas. 14.4 This witness was also declared hostile and after due permission by the Court, the learned APP cross-examined him. In his cross-examination, this witness has denied that when he was called to prepare the panchnama of mark-8/9, Chimanbhai Bhuriyabhai Nayak and Kalji Ravji Nayak of their village were present and the clothes worn by them were seized by the police as per the details of the panchnama after drawing panchnama of their physical condition. 14.5 This witness has further denied that when they were called to prepare panchnama of mark-8/10, Chiman Bhuriya was present and he had shown the place of offence before them. He has also denied that Chiman Bhuriya took them near his house and one stone was seized from there in their presence, or that he also showed one toilet and thereafter, he took them the panchas and the police near Sukhi Canal and showed the place by stating that he and Kalji had thrown the dead-body in that canal by bringing it in a bundle. This witness has also denied that a sari was seized as per the details of the panchnama. This witness has also denied that a sari was seized as per the details of the panchnama. 14.6 This witness has further denied that when he was called to prepare panchnama of mark 8/14, P.C. Chandrasinh had brought the clothes of the deceased Nankiben from hospital and those clothes were seized before the panchas as per the details of the panchnama. 14.7 This witness has denied that as the accused persons are from his village, he was giving false deposition to save them. 14.8 This witness was not cross-examined by the learned advocate for the accused. 15. PW. No. 7, Sanjaybhai Rimabhai, in his examination-in-chief has stated that he was a resident of Uchapan village. Gate of canal is situated towards Ghagharpur from their village. He did not know as to what was there in the canal. He and Thinganabhai did not take out anything from the canal. They did not take out any dead person or animal from the canal. Thereafter also he did not come to know the fact of any incident. He knew the accused persons. They were from their village. He knew the wife of the accused, Nanki, but he did not know whether she has dead or alive. He did not know anything with respect to incident of death of the deceased Nankiben. 15.1 This witness has further stated that the police interrogated him and recorded his statement. 15.2 This witness was also declared hostile, and the Court granted permission to the learned APP to cross examine this witness. He did not know anything with respect to incident of death of the deceased Nankiben. 15.1 This witness has further stated that the police interrogated him and recorded his statement. 15.2 This witness was also declared hostile, and the Court granted permission to the learned APP to cross examine this witness. In his cross-examination, this witness has denied that he dictated in his statement before the police dated 13th April 2008 that he had come to know the fact that the dead-body of Nankiben, the wife of Chimanbhai Bhuliyabhai Nayak was there in the water of canal and police also has reached, therefore he had gone to see and Thinganabhai Shaniyabhai and he, both together took out the dead-body at the instruction of the police, or that upon looking at the dead-body of Nankiben, there were maggots in the head or that eyes were closed or that skin was slightly bruised near the elbow of right hand and it was reddish like, or that skin had come off from the back part and was seen whitish, or that thereafter, he had come to know that on last 10th April 2008 at about nine hours in the night, this Chimanbhai having suspected Nankiben of illicit relationship, had altercation with her and threw her down with the hairs of head, kicked in the chest part and dashed the head of Nankiben with a stone on the ground by catching her with the hairs of head and killed her by strangulating her throat, or that he came to know the fact later on that in collusion with Kalji Ravji Nayka, the dead-body was kept in the toilet and the door of the toilet was closed, or that when it was dark, at about eight hrs in the night, they both carried the dead-body in a bundle made with sari and brought it near the canal and Chimanbhai threw the dead-body in the running water of canal. 15.3 This witness has further stated that he was giving false deposition to save the accused. 15.4 This witness was not cross-examined by the learned advocate for the accused. 16. PW. No.8, Thingnabhai Shaniyabhai, has stated in his examination-in-chief that he was a resident of Uchapan village. Gate of canal is situated towards Ghagharpur from their village. He knew Sanjay Rima of their village. They took out a dead-body from the canal near the gate. 15.4 This witness was not cross-examined by the learned advocate for the accused. 16. PW. No.8, Thingnabhai Shaniyabhai, has stated in his examination-in-chief that he was a resident of Uchapan village. Gate of canal is situated towards Ghagharpur from their village. He knew Sanjay Rima of their village. They took out a dead-body from the canal near the gate. That dead-body was of a woman. He did not know the village where the woman, the dead-body of whom was found, used to reside. They had seen the dead-body but he did know as to the condition in which it was. 16.1 This witness has further stated that he did not know the name of the person whose dead-body had been taken out. He did not get any information. He also did not have any information about the dead-body later also. 16.2 This witness has further stated that the police interrogated him and recorded his statement. 16.3 This witness was also declared hostile, and the Court granted permission to the learned APP to cross-examine him. In his cross-examination, he has denied that he had dictated in his statement before the police dated 13th April 2008 that he had come to know that on 10th April 2008 at about nine hours in the night, this Chimanbhai having suspected Nankiben of illicit relationship, had altercation with her and threw her down with the hairs of head, kicked in the chest part and dashed the head of Nankiben with a stone on the ground by catching her with the hair of head and killed her by strangulating her throat, or that he had come to know the fact later on, or that on 11th April 2008 in collusion with Kalji Ravji Nayka who was doing the work of Balva, the dead-body was kept in the toilet situated near the room of Chimanbhai and the door of the toilet was closed, or that when it was dark, at about eight hrs in the night, they both carried the dead-body in a bundle made with sari and brought it near the canal and Chimanbhai threw the dead-body in the running water of canal. 16.4 This witness has denied that he was giving false deposition to save the accused. 16.5 This witness was not cross-examined by the learned advocate for the accused. 17. PW. No. 9, Dr. 16.4 This witness has denied that he was giving false deposition to save the accused. 16.5 This witness was not cross-examined by the learned advocate for the accused. 17. PW. No. 9, Dr. Nilkamalsing Devkumarsing, who conducted the post-mortem of the dead-body, has stated in his examination-in-chief that on 13th April 2008, he was performing his duty as medical officer at Unchapan. On that day, he received Yadi of Jetpur Police Sub-Inspector to perform the postmortem of Nankiben Chimanbhai. He received Yadi along with post-mortem requisition form to perform postmortem. He has proved the said yadi. 17.1 This witness has further stated that after getting the Yadi at Exhibit-27, he started the postmortem of Nankiben on the same day at 3:30 hrs and completed it at 5:05 hrs. 17.2 This witness has stated that the dead-body was of a lady aged 45 years. There was light green blouse upon her and maroon coloured petticoat on lower abdomen. There was V marked white metal ring in the left index finger. There were two threads, red and black coloured, around her neck. Her clothes were dry and soiled with sand. The condition of body was averagely built and the dead-body was cold. Rigor mortis was absent on the body. Postmortem lividity was not found upon the dead-body. Bullae and denuded skin was present on chest, abdomen, upper thigh, arms, hands, face and scalp. Marbling was present on chest, abdomen, upper and lower limb. The dead-body was swollen. Maggots were present on face, abdomen, thigh, arms and scalp. The eyes were closed. The mouth was open. The tongue was swollen and protruded. The nose was depressed. Cuts anserina was present on hand and feet. The external genital organs of the dead-body were swollen and uterus was protruded from the body. Her both the hands were stiff. Her left lower limb was flexed at knee and it was laterally rotated. Her left thigh was bent and the movement was possible in middle of thigh. The right lower limb was stiff. 17.3 This witness has stated that upon examining the dead-body, the following external injuries were found. (1) There was cut and lacerated wound of 1”x1”x1/2” lateral to right canthus of right eye. (2) There was transverse complete fracture in middle of shaft of left femur. 17.4 This witness has stated that these injuries upon the dead-body were ante-mortem injuries. 17.3 This witness has stated that upon examining the dead-body, the following external injuries were found. (1) There was cut and lacerated wound of 1”x1”x1/2” lateral to right canthus of right eye. (2) There was transverse complete fracture in middle of shaft of left femur. 17.4 This witness has stated that these injuries upon the dead-body were ante-mortem injuries. 17.5 This witness has further stated that upon examining the dead-body, the following internal injuries were found. (1) Blood clots were present in layers of scalp. (2) There was one depressed fracture on right lateral end of frontal zone. (3) There was comminuted fracture of 2”x2” on left temporal zone. (4) There was fissured fracture on right supra-orbital ridge through and through. It was seen from outside. (5) The brain matter was like semi liquid. (6) Clots were present in substance of brain. (7) Blood stains fluid was found in abdomen cavity. (8) The teeth were loose. (9) Foul smelling semi liquid content was present in stomach. (10) Foul smelling contents were present in large intestine. (11) The liver was congested and contusion was seen on right lobe inferior surface. (12) Its pancreas, spleen and kidneys were congested. 17.6 This witness has stated that viscera samples from dead-body were taken in three bottle in one box as also in one bottle in another box, for examination. Stomach with its contents and parts of small intestines with its contents were collected in bottle no.1. Pieces of liver, heart, lung, kidney, spleen and uterus were collected in bottle no.2. The sample of vaginal swab was collected in bottle no.3. Bottle no.1, 2 & 3 were put in one box and were handed over to investigating officer. Part of sternum and part of the ribs were put in one box and were handed over to investigating officer. 17.7 This witness has further stated that injuries in column no.17 of his postmortem note may have caused by hurling of stone. This injury has been mentioned as injury no.1 of column no.17. The injury no.2 mentioned in column no.17 may have been caused if any person is forcefully dashed. He has written the external appearance of the dead-body in column no.11 of postmortem note and such can be caused if any person is thrown out into water after death. Such symptoms can be possible after 24 hours of human death. The injury no.2 mentioned in column no.17 may have been caused if any person is forcefully dashed. He has written the external appearance of the dead-body in column no.11 of postmortem note and such can be caused if any person is thrown out into water after death. Such symptoms can be possible after 24 hours of human death. 17.8 This witness has further stated that he has not mentioned the exact reason of death in his postmortem report, but he has mentioned such possible reason that the death of the deceased was caused due to cardio-respiratory arrest and due to shock as a result of Intra Cranial haemorrhage. He has stated that he could give the final cause of death after FSL report comes. The report of FSL was produced and another report was produced at 8/19 and after seeing that, he has stated that the death of the deceased was caused due to cardio-respiratory arrest and due to shock as a result of Intra Cranial haemorrhage. 17.9 He has further stated that the fractures mentioned in the internal injury column of his postmortem report are sufficient to cause the death of human being in routine course of nature. 17.10 He has stated that he had performed the postmortem of Nankiben with the panel doctor Vinodkumar Chauhan. He prepared this postmortem report in his own hand writing wherein he and Vinodkumar Chauhan had put their signature. He has proved the PM Report and identified the signature thereon. 17.11 In the cross-examination of this witness by the learned advocate for the accused persons, he was asked whether the front part of brain is called cerebrum and he has replied that Brain has two parts and were called cerebrum. 17.12 This witness has admitted that the front part of forehead is called cerebrum and the middle part of skull is called mid-brain. He has admitted that cerebrum covers the mid-brain. He has also admitted that there was a mid low oblongata part of brain at last near the neck. Spinal cord begins after the mid low oblongata part of brain. He has admitted that various body functions are distributed to various parts of brain. This witness however did not agree that if mid low oblongata gets injured, it may cause cardiac arrest and cause death of a person. Spinal cord begins after the mid low oblongata part of brain. He has admitted that various body functions are distributed to various parts of brain. This witness however did not agree that if mid low oblongata gets injured, it may cause cardiac arrest and cause death of a person. He has admitted that the injury shown upon right eye is said to be brain cerebrum. He has denied that the internal injury that he had mentioned in column no. 18(3) was between skull of head and scalp. The witness voluntarily states that these internal clots were also between skull and scalp and inside brain. 17.13 This witness has admitted that “cut and lacerated” is written in injury no.1 of column no.17. He has admitted that this cut and lacerated wound injury has been mentioned in injury No.1 of column no.17 and that was the only injury. As regards the cut and C.L.W. injury mentioned by him in injury no.1, according to the opinion of this witness, both these were injuries. Injury no.2 of column no.17 was on the thigh of left leg. This witness has agreed with the fact that the injury no.2 shown in column no.17 was not the only reason to cause the death of a human being. Such injury cannot cause death. This witness was shown a stone, muddamal no.2, and this witness did not agree to the fact that if that stone is lying on the ground and some portion thereof might be protruding, and if any person falls upon it, the injury no.1 mentioned in column No. 17 can not occur. He has admitted that if a person falls down on a rocky area, the injury no.1 mentioned in column No.17 cannot occur. He has admitted that if any person falls upon muddamal stone only once, the injury no.1 mentioned in column no.17 can occur. 17.14 This witness has agreed that if any person does not know swimming and if he falls in a small canal, the injuries mentioned in column no.18 could occur. In the same way, the injuries mentioned in column no.17 could occur. The death of the deceased was caused before 48 to 72 hrs before he performed the postmortem and he stated the hours approximately. This witness has agreed with the fact that the features that he had seen upon dead-body can be started if any person dies by drowning. 18. The death of the deceased was caused before 48 to 72 hrs before he performed the postmortem and he stated the hours approximately. This witness has agreed with the fact that the features that he had seen upon dead-body can be started if any person dies by drowning. 18. PW. No. 10, Laxmansinh Jaswantsinh Vaghela, is the Investigating Officer. In his examination in chief, he has stated that on th April 2008, when he was performing his duty as P.S.I. at Jetpur-Pavi Police Station, Kaljibhai Rayjibhai came to him and as he produced his complaint, he filed his complaint. The complainant put his thumb impression underneath his complaint and this witness put his signature as 'before me'. He has proved the complaint. 18.1 This witness has stated that after registering the complaint, it was sent to P.S.O. to register an offence. Thereafter, P.S.O. registered an offence and reported them for further investigation. This witness has proved both these documents. 18.2 This witness has further stated that as the offence was of grievous type, the superior officer was informed through Special report and the copy of that original Special Report has been proved by this witness. Yadi was sent to Executive Magistrate to conduct the inquest panchnama of this dead-body and the yadi was also proved by this witness. One Yadi was prepared and sent to the scientific officer to visit the place and guide to investigate the offence in this case and he has proved the same and the report produced by the Scientific Officer. 18.3 Two persons were called as panchas and the panchanama of the physical condition of Chiman Bhulia and Kalji Rayji was drawn. The panchnama was also proved by this witness. Thereafter, upon interrogating the accused persons, they showed them the place of offence, from where they brought out one wood and also showed them the place from where they threw the dead-body in a canal by bundling it. The panchnama in respect of that was prepared and as per the version of the accused no. 1, he brought out one sari which was seized for investigation purpose. The panchnama regarding that was prepared and he has proved the same. The panchnama in respect of that was prepared and as per the version of the accused no. 1, he brought out one sari which was seized for investigation purpose. The panchnama regarding that was prepared and he has proved the same. In the panchnama at Exh35, the accused Chiman Bhulia showed them two places where he had committed the offence and he voluntarily brought out the muddamal from there and as per the detail of panchnama, the muddamal was seized. One Yadi was made to medical officer to perform the postmortem of Nankiben through panel doctors in this case and its original copy has been produced at Exhibit-27 and P.M. note has been produced at Exh-28. After performing the postmortem of the dead-body, Police Constable Chandrasinh brought the clothes of the dead-body from the hospital and its panchnama was drawn before the panchas. He has proved the said panchnama. The muddamal seized under the panchnama and the muddamal given by medical officer were sent for examination by writing a yadi for the same. One cardboard box given by medical officer at Mark-8/15 with dispatch letter and it was sent to FSL, Vadodara and its copy was produced and the same has been proved. The clothes of the deceased and one piece of sari were sent to FSL, Vadodara with the dispatch letter at Mark-8/16 and the said yadi was also proved by this witness. This witness has stated that they received a receipt from FSL, Vadodara regarding the receiving of muddamal and its original copy was produced at and proved by this witness. They also received a receipt of muddamal sent to FSL, Surat which has been produced in this case and proved. They obtained analysis report from FSL, Surat which is produced in this case and proved. They obtained a report of Mark-25/1 from FSL, Vadodara and produced in this case at Exhibit 42. They obtained one report of analysis from FSL, Surat and its original report was produced and proved. A yadi was written to Taluka Development Officer to prepare a map of the place of offence in this case and its original office copy was produced and a map concerning that was also produced and proved. 18.4 This witness has identified the accused and the muddamal that they seized. A yadi was written to Taluka Development Officer to prepare a map of the place of offence in this case and its original office copy was produced and a map concerning that was also produced and proved. 18.4 This witness has identified the accused and the muddamal that they seized. As there were sufficient pieces of evidence against the accused persons, the charge-sheet had been filed against them in the Court. 18.5 This witness has stated that he recorded the statement of Haidarbhai Kesarbhai during police investigation and he dictated in his statement before him that, on the previous day, i.e. on 11th April 2008, he slept after having his meal and he came to know about throwing of dead-body in flowing water afterwards. 18.6 This witness has further stated that he recorded the statement of Kantibhai Jitabhai during his police investigation and he dictated in his statement before him that, on that day, at about eight hours in the morning he came to know about throwing of dead-body in flowing water afterwards. 18.7 This witness has further stated that he recorded the statement of Sanjaybhai Rimabhai during his police investigation and he dictated such in his statement before him that he came to know about throwing of dead-body of the wife of Chimanbhai Bhuliabhai Nayak, in flowing water afterwards. 18.8 This witness has further stated that he recorded the statement of Thiganbhai Shaniabhai during his police investigation and he dictated in his statement before him that he came to know afterwards that on 10th April 2008, about throwing of dead-body in flowing water. 18.9 In the cross examination of this witness by the learned advocate for the accused persons, this witness has denied that the statements of the witnesses were not written as dictated by them, but it was written to implicate the accused persons falsely in his own way. He has also denied that neither the accused persons have brought out any weapon before him nor they have shown the place of offence and he has drawn the panchnama by himself. He has also denied that the accused persons have not brought out and shown any piece of sari or stone, but he has collected all these objects himself. He has also denied that neither the accused persons have shown the place of offence nor the panchanamas were written as dictated by panchas. He has also denied that the accused persons have not brought out and shown any piece of sari or stone, but he has collected all these objects himself. He has also denied that neither the accused persons have shown the place of offence nor the panchanamas were written as dictated by panchas. He has also denied that as the deceased committed suicide and the accused no.1 was falsely interrogated and as the accused no.1 opposed the fact, his name has been falsely implicated in the case. He has also denied that in the same way, as the accused no.2 stated about falsity of implicating the accused No.1, the accused no.2 has been falsely implicated as accused in this case. He has further denied that he has not drawn any panchanama before panchas. He has also denied that neither any of the accused persons have shown any muddamal nor produced it. He further denied that though there was no evidence against the accused persons, the charge-sheet has been falsely filed. 19. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials on record, we find that in the case before us there is no direct evidence of killing the deceased by the accused No.1. It appears that the prosecution, for proving the guilt of the accused No.1, has relied upon the alleged extra-judicial confession made by the accused No.1 before accused No.2. The accused No.2, as indicated earlier, has allegedly lodged FIR by making confessional statement of his own guilt of the offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code as also the offence under Section 302 read with Section 201 of the accused No.1 allegedly made before him by the accused no. 1. 20. We find substance in the contention of Mr Barot, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants that the FIR lodged by the accused No.2 containing confessional statement of the accused No.1 of killing his wife and at the same time, his own confessional statement of tampering with the evidence cannot be the basis of conviction. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in the case of Aghnoo Nagesia vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1966 SC 119 , section 25 is imperative, and a confession made to a police officer in no circumstances is admissible in evidence against the accused person. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in the case of Aghnoo Nagesia vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1966 SC 119 , section 25 is imperative, and a confession made to a police officer in no circumstances is admissible in evidence against the accused person. The following observations of the Supreme Court at paragraphs 9 to 20 are relevant and quoted below:- ““9. Section 25 of the Evidence Act is one of the provisions of law dealing with confessions made by an accused. The law relating to confessions is to be found generally in Ss. 24 to 30 of the Evidence Act and Ss. 162 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Sections 17 to 31 of the Evidence Act are to be found under the heading "Admissions". Confession is a species of admission, and is dealt with in Ss. 24 to 30. A confession or an admission is evidence against the maker of it, unless its admissibility is excluded by some provision of law. Section 24 excludes confession caused by certain inducements, threats and promises. Section 25 provides: "No confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of an offence". The terms of S. 25 are imperative. A confession made to a police officer under any circumstances is not admissible in evidence against the accused. It covers a confession made when he was free and not in police custody, as also a confession made before any investigation has begun. The expression "accused of any offence" covers a person accused of an offence at the trial whether or not he was accused of the offence when he made the confession. Section 26 prohibits proof against any person of a confession made by him in the custody of a police officer, unless it is made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate. The partial ban imposed by S. 26 relates to a confession made to a person other than a police officer. Section 26 does not qualify the absolute ban imposed by S. 25 on a confession made to a police officer. Section 27 is in the form of a proviso, and partially lifts the ban imposed by Ss. The partial ban imposed by S. 26 relates to a confession made to a person other than a police officer. Section 26 does not qualify the absolute ban imposed by S. 25 on a confession made to a police officer. Section 27 is in the form of a proviso, and partially lifts the ban imposed by Ss. 24, 25 and 26.It provides that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved. Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure forbids the use of any statement made by any person to a police officer in the course of an investigation for any purpose at any enquiry or trial in respect of the offence under investigation, save as mentioned in the proviso and in cases falling under sub-s. (2), and it specifically provides that nothing in it shall be deemed to affect the provisions of S. 27 of the Evidence Act. The words of S. 162 are wide enough to include a confession made to a police officer in the course of an investigation. A statement or confession made in the course of an investigation may be recorded by a Magistrate under S. 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure subject to the safeguards imposed by the section. Thus, except as provided by S. 27 of the Evidence Act, a confession by an accused to a police officer is absolutely protected under S. 25 of the Evidence Act, and if it is made in the course of an investigation, it is also protected by S. 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and a confession to any other person made by him while in the custody of a police officer is protected by S. 26, unless it is made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate. These provisions seem to proceed upon the view that confessions made by an accused to a police officer or made by him while he is in the custody of a police officer are not to be trusted, and should not be used in evidence against him. They are based upon grounds of public policy and the fullest effect should be given to them. They are based upon grounds of public policy and the fullest effect should be given to them. 10. Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for the recording of the first information. The information report as such is not substantive evidence. It may be used to corroborate the informant under S. 157 of the Evidence Act or to contradict him under S. 145 of the Act, if the informant is called as a witness. If the first information is given by the accused himself, the fact of his giving the information is admissible against him as evidence of his conduct under S. 8 of the Evidence Act. If the information is a non-confessional statement, it is admissible against the accused as an admission under S. 21 of the Evidence Act and is relevant, see Faddi v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Cri. Appeal No. 210 of 1963, dated 24-1-1964: ( AIR 1964 SC 1850 ), explaining Nisar Ali v. State of U. P., (S) AIR 1957 SC 366 and Dal Singh v. King Emperor, 44 Ind App 137: ( AIR 1917 PC 25 ). But a confessional first information report to a police Officer cannot be used against the accused in view of S. 25 of the Evidence Act. 11. The Indian Evidence Act does not define "confession". For a long time, the Courts in India adopted the definition of "confession" given in Art. 22 of Stephen's Digest of the Law of Evidence. According to that definition a confession is an admission made at any time by a person charged with crime, stating or suggesting the inference that he committed that crime. This definition was discarded by the Judicial Committee in Pakala Narayanaswami v. Emperor, 66 Ind App 66 at p. 81: ( AIR 1939 PC 47 at p. 52). Lord Atkin observed: ".......no statement that contains self exculpatory matter can amount to confession, if the exculpatory statement is of some fact which if true would negative the offence alleged to be confessed. Moreover, a confession must either admit in terms the offence, or at any rate substantially all the facts which constitute the offence. Lord Atkin observed: ".......no statement that contains self exculpatory matter can amount to confession, if the exculpatory statement is of some fact which if true would negative the offence alleged to be confessed. Moreover, a confession must either admit in terms the offence, or at any rate substantially all the facts which constitute the offence. An admission of a gravely incriminating fact, even a conclusively incriminating fact, is not of itself a confession, e.g., an admission that the accused is the owner of and was in recent possession of the knife or revolver which caused a death with no explanation of any other man's possession." These observations received the approval of this Court in Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab (1), 1953 SCR 94 at p. 104; ( AIR 1952 SC 354 at p. 357). In State of U. P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya, (1961) 1 SCR 14 at p. 21: ( AIR 1960 SC 1125 at pp. 1128-1129). Shah, J., referred to a confession as a statement made by a person stating or suggesting the inference that he has committed a crime. 12. Shortly put, a confession may be defined as an admission of the offence by a person charged with the offence. A statement which contains self-exculpatory matter cannot amount to a confession, if the exculpatory statement is of some fact which, if true, would negative the offence alleged to be confessed. If an admission of an accused is to be used against him, the whole of it should be tendered in evidence and if part of the admission is exculpatory and part inculpatory, the prosecution is not at liberty to use in evidence the inculpatory part only. See Hanumant Govind v. State of M. P. 1952 SCR 1091 at p. 1111: ( AIR 1952 SC 343 at p. 350) and 1953 SCR 94 : ( AIR 1952 SC 354 ). The accused is entitled to insist that the entire admission including the exculpatory part must be tendered in evidence. But this principle is of no assistance to the accused where no part of his statement is self-exculpatory; and the prosecution intends to use the whole of the statement against the accused. 13. The accused is entitled to insist that the entire admission including the exculpatory part must be tendered in evidence. But this principle is of no assistance to the accused where no part of his statement is self-exculpatory; and the prosecution intends to use the whole of the statement against the accused. 13. Now, a confession may consist of several parts and may reveal not only the actual commission of the crime but also the motive, the preparation, the opportunity, the provocation, the weapons used, the intention, the concealment of the weapon and the subsequent conduct of the accused. If the confession is tainted the taint attaches to each part of it. It is not permissible in law to separate one part and to admit it in evidence as a non-confessional statement. Each part discloses some incriminating fact, i.e., some fact which by itself or along with other admitted or proved facts suggests the inference that the accused committed the crime, and though each part taken singly may not amount to a confession, each of them being part of a confessional statement partakes of the character of a confession. If a statement contains an admission of an offence, not only that admission but also every other admission of an incriminating fact contained in the statement is part of the confession. 14. If proof of the confession is excluded by any provision of law such as S.24, S. 25 and S. 26 of the Evidence Act, the entire confessional statement in all its parts including the admissions of minor incriminating facts must also be excluded, unless proof of it is permitted by some other section under as S. 27 of the Evidence Act. Little substance and content would be left in Ss. 24, 25 and 26 if proof of admission of incriminating facts in a confessional statement is permitted. 15. Sometimes, a single sentence in a statement may not amount to a confession at all. Take a case of a person charged under S. 301-A of the Indian Penal Code and a statement made by him to a police officer that "I was drunk: I was driving a car at a speed of 80 miles per hour. I could see A on the road at a distance of 80 yards; I did not blow the horn: I made no attempt to stop the car; the car knocked down A". I could see A on the road at a distance of 80 yards; I did not blow the horn: I made no attempt to stop the car; the car knocked down A". No single sentence in this statement amounts to a confession; but the statement read as a whole amounts to a confession of an offence under S. 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, and it would not be permissible to admit in evidence each sentence separately as a non-confessional statement. Again, take a case where a single sentence in a statement amounts to an admission of an offence. 'A' states "I struck 'B' with a tangi and hurt him". In consequence of the injury 'B' died. 'A' committed an offence and is chargeable under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. Unless he brings his case within one of the recognised exceptions, his statement amounts to an admission of an offence, but the other parts of the statement such as the motive, the preparation, the absence of provocation, concealment of the weapon and the subsequent conduct, all throw light upon the gravity of the offence and the intention and knowledge of the accused, and negatives the right of private defence, accident and other possible defences. Each and every admission of an incriminating fact contained in the confessional statement is part of the confession. 16. If the confession is caused by an inducement, threat or promise as contemplated by S. 24 of the Evidence Act, the whole of the confession is excluded by S. 24. Proof of not only the admission of the offence but also the admission of every other incriminating fact such as the motive, the preparation and the subsequent conduct is excluded by S. 24. To hold that the proof of the admission of other incriminating facts is not barred by S. 24 is to rob the section of its practical utility and content. It may be suggested that the bar of S. 24 does not apply to the other admissions, but though receivable in evidence, they are of no weight, as they were caused by inducement, threat or promise. According to this suggestion, the other admissions are relevant but are of no value. But we think that on a plain construction of S. 24, proof of all the admissions of incriminating facts contained in a confessional statement is excluded by the section. Similarly, Ss. According to this suggestion, the other admissions are relevant but are of no value. But we think that on a plain construction of S. 24, proof of all the admissions of incriminating facts contained in a confessional statement is excluded by the section. Similarly, Ss. 25 and 26 bar not only proof of admission of an offence by an accused to a police officer or made by him while in the custody of a police officer but also admissions contained in the confessional statement of all incriminating facts related to the offence. 17. A little reflection will show that the expression "confession" in Ss. 24 to 30 refers to the confessional statement as a whole including not only the admissions of the offence but also all other admissions of incriminating facts related to the offence. Section 27 partially lifts the ban imposed by Ss. 24, 25 and 26 in respect of so much of the information whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact discovered in consequence of the information, if the other conditions of the section are satisfied. Section 27 distinctly contemplates that an information leading to a discovery may be a part of the confession of the accused and thus fall within the purview of Ss. 24, 25 and 26. Section 27 thus shows that a confessional statement admitting the offence may contain additional information as part of the confession. Again, S. 30 permits the Court to take into consideration against a co-accused a confession of another accused affecting not only himself but the other co-accused. Section 30 thus shows that matters affecting other persons may form part of the confession. 18. If the first information report is given by the accused to a police officer and amounts to a confessional statement, proof of the confession is prohibited by S. 25. The confession includes not only the admission of the offence but all other admissions of incriminating facts related to the offence contained in the confessional statement. No part of the confessional statement is receivable in evidence except to the extent that the ban of S. 25 is lifted by S. 27. 19. Our attention is not drawn to any decision of this Court or of the Privy Council on the question whether apart from S. 27, a confessional first information report given by an accused is receivable in evidence against him. 19. Our attention is not drawn to any decision of this Court or of the Privy Council on the question whether apart from S. 27, a confessional first information report given by an accused is receivable in evidence against him. Decisions of the High Court on this point are hopelessly conflicting. They contain all shades of opinion, ranging from total exclusion of the confession to total inclusion of all admissions of incriminating facts except the actual commission of the crime. In Harji v. Emperor, AIR 1918 Lah 69 and Nur Muhammad v. Emperor, 90 Ind Cas 148 (Lah), the Lahore High Court held that the entire confessional first information report was inadmissible in evidence. In Emperor v. Harman Kisha. ILR 59 Bom 120: (AIR 1935 Bom 26), the Bombay High Court held that the entire confessional report dealing with events on the night of the offence was hit by S. 25, and it could not be said that portions of it dealing with the motive and the opportunity were not parts of the confession. In Emperor v. Kommoju Brahman. ILR 1940-19 Pat 301 at pp. 308, 314: (AIR 1940 Pat 163 at pp. 165, 167), the Patna High Court held that no part of the confessional first information report was receivable in evidence, the entire report formed a single connected story and no part of it had any meaning or significance except in relation to the whole, and it would be wrong to extract parts of the statement and treat them as relevant. This case was followed in Adi Moola Padayachi v. State, 1960 Mad WN 528 and the Court admitted only the portion of the confessional first information report which showed it was given by the accused and investigation had started thereon. In State of Rajasthan v. Shiv Singh, AIR 1962 Raj 3 , the Court admitted in evidence the last part of the report dealing with the movements of the accused after the commission of the offence, but excluded the other parts of the statement including those relating to motive and opportunity. In Legal Remembrancer v. Lalit Mohan Singh Roy, ILR 49 Cal 167 : (AIR 1922 Cal 342), the Calcutta High Court admitted in evidence the narrative of the events prior to the night of the occurrence disclosing the motive of the offence. In Legal Remembrancer v. Lalit Mohan Singh Roy, ILR 49 Cal 167 : (AIR 1922 Cal 342), the Calcutta High Court admitted in evidence the narrative of the events prior to the night of the occurrence disclosing the motive of the offence. This case was followed by the Nagpur Court in Bharova Ramdayal v. Emperor, AIR 1941 Nag 86. In Kartar Singh v. State, AIR 1952 Pepsu 98, the Court admitted in evidence the introductory part and the portion narrating the motive and the opportunity. In Ram Singh v. The State, ILR (1952) 2 Raj 93, the Rajasthan High Court held that where it is possible to separate parts of the first information report by an accused from that in which he had made a confession that part which can be so separated should be admitted in evidence, and on this view, admitted a part of the report relating to motive and subsequent conduct including the statement that the accused had left the deceased lying wounded and breathing in the tibari and there was no hope of her surviving and he had come having covered her with a cloth. In Lachman Munda v. The State of Bihar, AIR 1964 Pat 210 , the Patna High Court admitted in evidence portions of the first information report relating to the motive, the opportunity and the entire narrative of events before and after the crime. This case was followed in the judgment under appeal. Some of the decided cases took the view that if a part of the report is properly severable from the strict confessional part, then the severable part could be tendered in evidence. We think that the separability test is misleading and the entire confessional statement is hit by S. 25 and save and except as provided by S. 27 and save and except the formal part identifying the accused as the maker of the report, no part of it could be tendered in evidence. 20. We think, therefore, that save and except parts 1, 15 and 18 identifying the appellant as the maker of the first information report and save and except the portions coming within the purview of S. 27, the entire first information report must be excluded from evidence.” 21. 20. We think, therefore, that save and except parts 1, 15 and 18 identifying the appellant as the maker of the first information report and save and except the portions coming within the purview of S. 27, the entire first information report must be excluded from evidence.” 21. We have already pointed out that in this case, except the scientific officer, Circle Inspector, the Doctor who made the postmortem examination and the Investigating Officer, all the witnesses have become hostile and there is no evidence either direct or circumstantial indicating that there was any altercation between the accused No.1 and his wife, as alleged by the prosecution, or that the accused No.1 used to suspect the moral character of his wife. As regards keeping the dead-body in the bathroom for few hours and thereafter, throwing of the dead-body in the canal, there is no evidence adduced by any prosecution witnesses. 22. It appears that the learned Sessions Judge has virtually based the conviction on the basis of the FIR lodged by the accused No.2 containing the extra judicial confession of the accused no. 1 and the confession of the accused no. 2 and thereafter, gone in search of corroboration. It appears that the whole approach of the Sessions Judge was to make the extra judicial confessional statement of the accused no. 1 and the confession of the accused no. 2 contained in the FIR as the basis and then to find out if the facts stated therein were corroborated by other evidence instead of analyzing the evidence first and trying to find out whether the evidence is reliable and the fact established are consistent with the guilt of the accused. 23. That should not be the approach of the Sessions Court, as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Chandrakant Chimanlal Desai vs. State of Gujarat reported in 1992 Cri LJ 2757. The following observation of the Supreme Court in the said decision is relevant and is quoted below :- “5. The confession of the first accused was retracted at the time when the accused was questioned under Sec. 313. In considering the reliability of this confessional statement the High Court had not kept in view the observations of this Court in Kashmira Singh vs. State of M.P., ( AIR 1952 SC 159 ) : (1952 Cri.L.J. 839). The confession of the first accused was retracted at the time when the accused was questioned under Sec. 313. In considering the reliability of this confessional statement the High Court had not kept in view the observations of this Court in Kashmira Singh vs. State of M.P., ( AIR 1952 SC 159 ) : (1952 Cri.L.J. 839). In this decision the Supreme Court had observed: “The confession of an accused person is not evidence in the ordinary sense of the term as defined in S. 3. It cannot be made the foundation of a conviction and can only be used in support of other evidence. The proper way is, first, to marshal the evidence against the accused excluding the confession altogether from consideration and see whether, if it is believed a conviction could safely be based on it. If it is capable of belief independently of the confession, then of course it is not necessary to call the confession in aid. But cases may arise where the Judge is not prepared to act on the other evidence as it stands even though, if believed, it would be sufficient to sustain a conviction. In such an event the Judge may call in aid the confession and use it to lend assurance to the other evidence and thus fortify himself in believing what without the aid of the confession he would not be prepared to accept.”” (Emphasis supplied) ] 24. As in the case before us, the extra-judicial confession allegedly made by the accused No.1 before accused No.2 has been brought on record through the FIR of the accused No.2, we cannot even take into consideration such fact inasmuch as such confession is totally inadmissible in evidence against the accused no. 2. Similarly, even the accused no. 2 has denied having made such complaint. 15. We, thus, find that in the case before us there is no admissible piece of evidence justifying conviction of the accused No.1 for murder or of the offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Similarly, so far as the accused No.2 is concerned, apart from his own FIR lodged before police confessing his guilt for the offence under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, there is no other legally admissible piece of evidence justifying the conviction. 26. Similarly, so far as the accused No.2 is concerned, apart from his own FIR lodged before police confessing his guilt for the offence under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, there is no other legally admissible piece of evidence justifying the conviction. 26. We, therefore, allow both the appeals and set aside the conviction and the consequential sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge. The appellants are acquitted of the offence charged against them in this case. The accused No.1 [appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 1036 of 2009] be immediately released if not wanted in connection with any other case. The accused No.2 [appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 1037 of 2009], we are told, has already been released after serving out the sentence.