JUDGMENT : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. The Judgment and order of acquittal of the sole accused from the charges framed against him u/s 302/201 I.P.C. in Sessions Trial No. 453 of 1995 has been challenged by the State in the instant acquittal appeal filed u/s 378(1) (5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. F.I.R. was registered on the basis of ferdbeyan of one Khiru Mahto, the father-in-law of the deceased namely, Saroiya Devi. It was against unknown. In the postmortem examination a single injury on the neck of the deceased was found by the doctor. No other external or internal injury was detected on the dead body. The informant did not raise a finger of suspicion to any one. 3. The entire prosecution case against the accused rests solely on the alleged confession of the respondent-accused and recovery of tangi in his presence. 4. During the trial, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses, out of which P.W.4, P.W.6, P.W.8 and P.W.9 were tendered, however, no explanation was offered by the prosecution for tendering the witnesses. The other witnesses who were examined by the prosecution, all have deposed in the court that the respondent-accused confessed his guilt in presence of the police officer and the villagers. It has come in their evidence that a Panchayati was held in which the respondent-accused was detained by the villagers and he confessed that he killed the deceased by inflicting "PASA" blow. None of the witnesses gave a specific date when Panchayati was held and it has also come in the prosecution evidence that it was held one or two months after the occurrence. The story of the confession of accused confessing before the M.C.C. was also given by some of the witnesses. It is a matter of record that the respondent-accused was arrested about 15 days after the registration of the F.I.R. The witnesses namely, Madan Murari Pathak was examined by moving an application U/s 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to prove the seizure list, however, in his cross-examination he has deposed that it was not prepared in his presence. 5. The learned trial court has noticed that the confession of the respondent-accused is not admissible because it was not voluntarily; the accused allegedly confessed the guilt after the villagers beat him. 5. The learned trial court has noticed that the confession of the respondent-accused is not admissible because it was not voluntarily; the accused allegedly confessed the guilt after the villagers beat him. The trial court further noticed that P.W.5 has given entirely different version from P.W.1 and P.W.3 to the effect that he deposed in the court that 'M.C.C. Adalat' was held in the forest where 1000 persons had assembled. The accused examined one defence witness namely, Jagdish Yadav who deposed in the court that on the alleged day of occurrence the accused was not present in the village rather, he was present in his house for tilak ceremony of his son. The distance between the two villages is 35-40 Kms. The defence version has been corroborated by the statement of P.W.8, who is the wife of the deceased, who admitted in her cross-examination that the accused was not present in the village when the occurrence took place. 6. The trial court held that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and he is entitled for benefit of doubts. 7. After scanning the entire evidence once again, we approve the view taken by the trial court. The prosecution has failed to examine the Investigating Officer and could not prove the seizure list. The alleged story of confession by the accused cannot be the basis for conviction for the offence U/s 302/201 I.P.C. Moreover, the alleged recovery of the crime weapon is not proved. 8. Considering the inconsistencies and contradictions in the prosecution evidence, we find no substantial and compelling circumstance to interfere with the order of acquittal. Resultantly, the appeal fails.