JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the State against judgment passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, dated 19.07.2012, in Sessions Trial No. 14-N/7 of 2007, vide which, learned trial Court has acquitted the accused for offence under Sections 302/201 I.P.C. 2. The case of the prosecution was that Bhag Singh had three brothers. Sher Singh was the eldest brother. Deceased Bachi Ram was younger to Sher Singh and elder to Bhag Singh. Bhag Singh on 15.09.2006 had come to Dadahu where he met Bachi Ram, who was employed as a driver with one Payare Lal Sood. Babu Ram was also with him. At village Gawara deceased Bachi Ram asked Bhag Singh to wait for him after parking the vehicle and said that he would be coming within 10/15 minutes. However, Bachi Ram did not return back. Bhag Singh went to his house. On the said date, wife and daughter of deceased Bachi Ram were present in the house. Next day i.e. on 16.09.2007 at around 7.30 A.M. his grandfather Sahi Ram informed that Amar Singh resident of village Gawara seems to have died in the field. On this Bhag Singh, his brother Sher Singh and their grandfather Sahi Ram went there and found that it was not Amar Singh but Bachi Ram, who was lying dead on the spot. The dead body was trapped with wires. Bachi Ram had been electrocuted. There were burn injuries on his body. It was suspected that Narain Singh son of Partap Singh and Shamsher Singh, Ex. Pradhan were involved in electrocution of Bachi Ram as Shamsher Singh on 14.09.2006 had threatened Bachi Ram on the date of Court case. On information, police reached the spot and recorded statement of Bhag Singh. On the basis of the same, case was initially registered under Sections 302/201 I.P.C. During investigation, police discovered that Shamsher Singh and Narain Singh were not involved in the electrocution of Bachi Ram. Accused during the course of investigation on 20.09.2006 confessed to have joined the wire for the purpose of protection of fields and for hunting wild animals in which deceased Bachi Ram was trapped. On the basis of his disclosure statement, recoveries were effected. The dead body of the deceased was subjected to postmortem. Accused during the course of investigation on 20.09.2006 confessed to have joined the wire for the purpose of protection of fields and for hunting wild animals in which deceased Bachi Ram was trapped. On the basis of his disclosure statement, recoveries were effected. The dead body of the deceased was subjected to postmortem. Viscera was preserved and got analyzed from FSL Junga, as per which poison was not found. Report of Sub Divisional Officer, Electrical Sub Division, Dadahu was obtained to the effect that sparking spot on account of loose connection on the L.T. line conductor was found. 3. After completion of the investigation, challan was presented under Sections 304/201 I.P.C. before the Court and as sufficient grounds were found to proceed against the accused, accordingly, he was charged for commission of offence under Sections 304/201 I.P.C. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. On the basis of the material produced on record by the prosecution, the learned trial came to the conclusion that it was a case of no evidence against the accused that he had committed an offence under Sections 304 Part 1 and 201 I.P.C. The learned trial Court accordingly recorded his acquittal in light of Section 232 Cr.P.C. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment of learned trial Court, State has filed the present appeal. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. 7. Section 232 of the Cr.P.C. provides as under:- “232. Acquittal – If, after taking the evidence for the prosecution, examining the accused and hearing the prosecution and the defence on the point, the Judge considers that there is no evidence that the accused committed the offence, the Judge shall record an order of acquittal.” 8. In the present case, FIR is dated 16.09.2006, which has been recorded on the basis of statement of Bhag Singh made under Section 154 Cr.P.C. In his statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. Ext. PW1/A it was stated by Bhag Singh that he suspected that Narain Singh son of Partap Singh who was son of his uncle (Taya) with whom they were having court case and Shamsher Singh, Ex. PW1/A it was stated by Bhag Singh that he suspected that Narain Singh son of Partap Singh who was son of his uncle (Taya) with whom they were having court case and Shamsher Singh, Ex. Pradhan, Gram Panchayat Sheetla, who was inimical towards them since the time of Panchayat elections, had so planned that they left a live electric wire in such a manner on the road leading to their house that when his brother walked from the said path to reach his house during night hours, he died on account of electrocution. Accordingly, he requested that legal action be initiated against the suspects. As per the case of the prosecution when the matter was investigated by the police it was discovered that Narain Singh and Shamsher Singh had not committed any such act as was suspected against them by PW-1 Bhag Singh and that Narain Singh and Shamsher Singh had been wrongly made suspects and named in the FIR. 9. It is a matter of record that the accused was not named in FIR. He was implicated by the police for the offence on the ground that he confessed before the police in presence of the witnesses that he had connected the service wire with the electric line 15 meters away from the place where the dead body of Bachi Ram was recovered. 10. Thus, in our considered view, the so called disclosure statement made by the accused on the basis of which he was implicated by the police for the commission of the offence is of utmost importance in the present case. The disclosure statement has to be scrutinized very carefully as to whether it inspire any confidence so as to agree with the State and set aside the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court under Section 232 Cr.P.C. 11. It is settled principle of law that no confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence. This is provided in Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Section 26 of the said Act further provides that no confession made by any person while he is in the custody of a police officer, shall be proved as against such person unless it be made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate. This is provided in Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Section 26 of the said Act further provides that no confession made by any person while he is in the custody of a police officer, shall be proved as against such person unless it be made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate. Section 27 of the said Act provides how much of an information received from accused may be proved. 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mehboob Ali & Another Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2015) 9 JT 512 , has held as under:- “(13) For application of Section 27 of Evidence Act, admissible portion of confessional statement has to be found as to a fact which were the immediate cause of the discovery, only that would be part of legal evidence and not the rest. In a statement if something new is discovered or recovered from the accused which was not in the knowledge of the Police before disclosure statement of the accused is recorded, is admissible in the evidence. (14) Section 27 of Evidence Act refers when any "fact" is deposed. Fact has been defined in section 3 of the Act. Same is quoted below: "Fact" means and includes' (1) any thing, state of things, or relation of things, capable of being by the senses; (2) any mental condition of which any person is conscious. Illustrations: (a) That there are certain objects arranged in a certain order in a certain place, is a fact. (b) That a man heard or saw something, is a fact. (c) That a man said certain words, is a fact. (d) That a man holds a certain opinion, has a certain intention, acts in good faith, or fraudulently, or uses a particular word in a particular sense, or is or was at a specified time conscious of a particular sensation, is a fact. (e) That a man has a certain reputation, is a fact. "Relevant". "One fact is said to be relevant to another when the one is connected with the other in any of the ways referred to in the provisions of this Act relating to the relevancy of facts." (16) This Court in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu alias Afsan Guru, 2005 11 SCC 600 has considered the question of discovery of a fact referred to in Section 27. This Court has considered plethora of decisions and explained the decision in Pulukuri Kottaya & Ors. v. Emperor, 1947 AIR(PC) 67 and held thus: "125. We are of the view that Kottaya Case, 1947 AIR(PC) 67 is an authority for the proposition that "discovery of fact" cannot be equated to the object produced or found. It is more than that. The discovery of fact arises by reason of the fact that the information given by the accused exhibited the knowledge or the mental awareness of the informant as to its existence at a particular place. 126. We now turn our attention to the precedents of this Court which followed the track of Kottaya case. The ratio of the decision in Kottaya case reflected in the underlined passage extracted was highlighted in several decisions of this Court. 127. The crux of the ratio in Kottaya case was explained by this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Damu. Thomas J. observed that: (SCC p. 283, para 35) "The decision of the Privy Council in Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor is the most quoted authority for supporting the interpretation that the "fact discovered" envisaged in the section embraces the place from which the object was produced, the knowledge of the accused as to it, but the information given must relate distinctly to that effect." In Mohd. Inayatullah v. State of Maharashtra, 1976 1 SCC 828 , Sarkaria, J. while clarifying that the expression "fact discovered" in Section 27 is not restricted to a physical or material fact which can be perceived by the senses, and that it does include a mental fact, explained the meaning by giving the gist of what was laid down in Pulukuri Kottaya case. The learned Judge, speaking for the Bench observed thus: (SCC p. 832, para 13) "Now it is fairly settled that the expression "fact discovered" includes not only the physical object produced, but also the place from which it is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this (See Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor and Udai Bhan v. State of U.P. 1962 Supp2 SCR 830)." 13. Disclosure statement of the accused is Ext. PW8/A. This disclosure statement has been made by the accused in Police Station on 20.09.2006 allegedly in the presence of witnesses Shayama Devi and Bhag Singh. Shayama Devi appeared as PW-8 and Bhag Singh appeared as PW-1. Disclosure statement of the accused is Ext. PW8/A. This disclosure statement has been made by the accused in Police Station on 20.09.2006 allegedly in the presence of witnesses Shayama Devi and Bhag Singh. Shayama Devi appeared as PW-8 and Bhag Singh appeared as PW-1. In his statement, PW-1 Bhag Singh has deposed in this regard as under:- “Later on Deep Ram on 19-9-2006 confessed that he had passed a current in the path by joining a wire with electricity line, which passes near to the spot of occurrence. The accused Deep Ram was arrested by the police. The accused gave a disclosure statement to the police that he has concealed the wire used by him in his field and can get the same recovered. I was joined by the police in the investigation. Deep Ram got recovered wire from his house. The same was taken into possession by the police vide memo Ext. PW1/C. The wire which was got recovered is Ext. P1. The wire Ext. P2 is not the wire which was wrapped in the legs and hands of Bachhi Ram.” 14. In his cross-examination, PW-1 stated that confession was made by the accused on 09.09.2006. He further deposed that when the accused gave disclosure statement Shayama Devi was not present. In fact, in his cross-examination, he has deposed as under:- “The accused has confessed at about 8.00 P.M. in the evening. When the accused gave disclosure statement Shayama Devi was not present.” He had further stated that wire was not got recovered from the place which accused had disclosed to the police in his statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. 15. PW-8 Shayama Devi deposed that she was Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Katah-Sheetla and was associated in the investigation of the case in the year 2006. She further stated that she did not know what accused told the police. According to her, accused Deep Ram took them to their house to get electric wire recovered. She was declared as a hostile witness. However, the prosecution was not able to elucidate anything cogent to further the cause of the prosecution from her cross-examination. In her cross-examination by learned A.P.P., she admitted it to be correct that Deep Ram had stated to the police about getting wire recovered and his statement was recorded as Ext. She was declared as a hostile witness. However, the prosecution was not able to elucidate anything cogent to further the cause of the prosecution from her cross-examination. In her cross-examination by learned A.P.P., she admitted it to be correct that Deep Ram had stated to the police about getting wire recovered and his statement was recorded as Ext. PW8/A. However, in her cross-examination by learned defence counsel, she admitted it to be correct that accused had not made any statement to the police in her presence. 16. Recovery effected on the basis of the alleged disclosure statement is as per Ext. PW1/B and Ext. PW1/C. According to Memo Ext. PW1/C, the recovery has been effected in consonance with what was revealed by the accused in his disclosure statement. 17. However, PW-1 in his statement stated that the recovery was not made from the place which was mentioned by the accused in his disclosure statement. 18. Another very important aspect of the matter is that PW-1 Bhag Singh has deposed that wire Ext. P-2 is not the wire which was wrapped in the legs and hands of deceased Bachi Ram. 19. PW-2 Ramesh Chand has not supported the case of the prosecution and he was declared as a hostile witness. In his cross-examination, he emphatically denied all the suggestions of the State to the effect that Deep Ram confessed in his presence that he has used Ext. P-1 to pass current by joining the same in the electricity line or that accused confessed the guilt in his presence and made statement to the police to this effect. 20. The prosecution has not produced any witness to prove and substantiate that the accused had put a net in the field for the purpose of hunting of animals and had connected the wire with the electricity line from nearby pole. Not even an iota of evidence has been placed on record by the prosecution in this regard. 21. The so called confession in this regard by the accused is not inspiring confidence because the testimonies of the witnesses to the disclosure statement have not corroborated the case of the prosecution. PW-1 is an interested witness as he is the brother of the deceased. PW-8 has not supported the case of the prosecution. PW-1 in fact has also stated that PW-8 was not present when the disclosure statement was made by the accused. PW-1 is an interested witness as he is the brother of the deceased. PW-8 has not supported the case of the prosecution. PW-1 in fact has also stated that PW-8 was not present when the disclosure statement was made by the accused. Further, as per PW-1, the wire was not recovered from the place which was disclosed by the accused in his disclosure statement. 22. It is further clear from the testimony of both PW-1 Bhag Singh and PW-3 Sher Singh that the accused was employed as a servant with Amar Singh son of Sita Ram and the house of the accused was about half KM away from the house of Amar Singh. The dead body of Bachi Ram was not found from the land of the accused and the same was found on the land adjoining to the land of Narain Singh son of Partap Singh. 23. From the material placed on record it is not made out as to how the police have linked the present accused with the commission of the alleged offence. None of the prosecution witnesses have corroborated the case of the prosecution so as to link the accused with the alleged commission of the offence. 24. Another important aspect of the matter is that even the police was not very sure as to what offence was made out In the present case. Initially the case was registered under Section 302 I.P.C. Later on it was converted under Selection 304-A I.P.C. Thereafter, it was converted under Section 304 IPC. 25. All these aspects of the matter have been taken into consideration by the learned trial Court. On the basis of the appreciation of the material on record, the learned trial Court had come to the conclusion that there is no legal evidence adduced on record to suggest the commission of the offence alleged against the accused. Accordingly, the learned trial Court recorded the acquittal the accused of the charges under the provisions of Section 232 Cr.P.C. 26. It is settled law that when a Judge proposes to acquit on the ground of “no evidence” he is to give reasons as to why he has come to the conclusion. If there is finding that there is no evidence, then the trial Court is to acquit the accused. It is settled law that when a Judge proposes to acquit on the ground of “no evidence” he is to give reasons as to why he has come to the conclusion. If there is finding that there is no evidence, then the trial Court is to acquit the accused. “No evidence” means according to Stround's Judicial Dictionary “no reasonable evidence to show that accused had committed the offence.” 27. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Harihar Chakravorty Vs. State of W.B. AIR 1954 SC 266 , that once a charge is framed and the accused is found not guilty of that charge an acquittal must be recorded. 28. Further, it is settled law that if after taking the evidence of prosecution, examining the accused and hearing the prosecution and defence on the point the judge considers that there is no evidence to the effect the accused has committed the offence, then the judge shall record an order of acquittal under Section 232 Cr.P.C. 29. In the present case also, the learned Court below after taking evidence of the prosecution, examining the accused and after hearing the prosecution and defence on the point, has come to the conclusion that there is no evidence that the accused committed the offence. Accordingly, the learned trial Court has recorded an order of acquittal under Section 232 Cr.P.C. 30. In our considered view, there is no infirmity with the said judgment passed by the learned trial Court. We have perused the material placed on record by the prosecution. From the discussion held above, it is apparent that there is no evidence to the effect that the accused has committed the offence charged against him. 31. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that the object of Section 232 is to expedite the conclusion of the Sessions trial and at the same time, to avoid unnecessary harassment to the accused by calling upon him to adduce evidence. The accused has to be acquitted under Section 232 Cr.P.C. if there is no evidence at all. 32. In view of what we have discussed above, we are agree with the findings returned by the learned trial Court and uphold the acquittal of the accused under Section 232 Cr.P.C. and dismiss the appeal being without nay merit. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged.