JUDGMENT : Prithviraj K. Chavan, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction dated 17.1.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, South Goa, Margao in Sessions Case no.1/2013 in which the appellant has been convicted and sentenced under Section 302 IPC for life and fine of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) as well as under Section 201 of IPC for which he is sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only). 2. Facts emerged from the record can be summarised as follows:- Complainant - Vincent Baptista (PW1) is the uncle of deceased Luis Baptista who had lodged a complaint with Maina Curtorim Police Station on 6.10.2012. Deceased Luis was staying alone in his room in the joint family. Luis was working as a labourer on daily wages in Loutolim area. On 4.10.2012, deceased Luis informed Vincent Baptista (PW1) that he would be going for medical examination at Panaji on 6.10.2012, as he was planning to go abroad. On 5.10.2012 at about 5.00p.m when PW1 Vincent Baptista was proceeding towards his residence on his motorcycle, he saw Luis standing on the road in front of Maria Bar at Carvotta Loutolim. After having dinner around 9.00p.m when PW1 Vincent was about to go to his bed, his son PW5 Simon came home and informed that Luis was playing carom at Vincy Bar Carvotta Loutolim however on 6.10.2012 at about 6.30 hours when Vincent went for fishing at Carvotta, a person informed him that someone had killed Luis. PW1 therefore, immediately rushed to the spot which was situated in front of house of PW13 Dinesh Mota at Carvotta. He noticed Luis lying dead on the ground and was surrounded by many persons. He also noticed several bleeding cut injuries on the face and hands of Luis. On inquiry, he came to know that Luis was playing carom at Vincy Bar on the earlier night alongwith Peter Culaco, Juze Thomas, Simon, Diago and appellant Santosh Pujari. After the game all of them left the bar at about 22 hours. On the basis of the complaint, an offence under Section 302 IPC came to be registered at Maina Curtorim Police Station. The Complaint is at Exh. 11. 3. After the game all of them left the bar at about 22 hours. On the basis of the complaint, an offence under Section 302 IPC came to be registered at Maina Curtorim Police Station. The Complaint is at Exh. 11. 3. PW19 Gurudas Kadam, Police Inspector, attached to the said Police Station on receiving information through a phone call informed PSI Ravi Desai who was duty officer to visit the scene of occurrence alongwith sufficient staff. PW19 also reached the spot and noticed deceased Luis lying in a pool of blood with many cut injuries over his head, face and neck region. PW19 Gurudas Kadam drew the scene of occurrence panchanama. He had also informed dog squad as well as finger print squad and police photographer to visit the spot. He had collected the blood stained mud and other articles from the scene of occurrence. He had also seized pair of sandal of the deceased having blood stains. Panchanamas were drawn in the presence of two pancha witnesses namely PW2 Jose Fernandes and PW3 Joseph Fernandes. Inquest panchanama was drawn as per Exh. 13 colly. Dead body of the deceased was forwarded to Hospicio Hospital Margao for conducting detailed inquest panchanama and for conducting autopsy. The photographs of the dead body were taken by a police photographer. Clothes on the person of the deceased in the form of green coloured t-shirt having black horizontal stripes smeared with blood and a blue coloured short were seized under a panchanama. 4. During autopsy it revealed that it was a case of homicidal death. On the same day, body of the deceased was handed over to the relatives for funeral. Investigating officer had recorded statement of various witnesses. During the course of investigation PW13 Dinesh Mota approached police station and informed PSI Ravindra Desai that his labourer had committed murder of deceased Luis. On the basis of the investigation and the information given by PW13 Dinesh Mota, the appellant came to be arrested. The clothes on the person of the appellant were seized. In view of the voluntary statement of the appellate while in police custody, the weapon of offence i.e Coita and the clothes on the person of the appellant came to be discovered at his instance. Blood sample of the deceased as well as the appellant were obtained for grouping. The clothes on the person of the appellant were seized. In view of the voluntary statement of the appellate while in police custody, the weapon of offence i.e Coita and the clothes on the person of the appellant came to be discovered at his instance. Blood sample of the deceased as well as the appellant were obtained for grouping. Sealed muddemal was referred for chemical analysis to Central Forensic Science Laboratory Hyderabad (for short “CFSL”). The blood report of the appellant received from the Hospicio hospital Margao is at Exh. 59 and report of CFSL as regards vicera of the deceased which was forwarded by Regional Forensic Science Laboratory at Exh.60. After investigation a chargesheet was laid against the appellant in the court of JMFC, Margao under Sections 302, 201 IPC. 5. After committal of the case to the Sessions Court, the learned Additional Sessions Judge after hearing the prosecution and defence framed charge against the appellant under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC on 7.2.2013. The appellant was put to trial. The prosecution has examined as many as 19 witnesses to substantiate the guilt of the appellant. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after going through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and hearing the respective sides arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has proved complicity of the appellant in the crime mainly on the basis that he was “last seen together” with the deceased as well as on the basis of discovery of weapon of offence and other articles under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act (for short “Evidence Act”). Appellant, as such, came to be convicted and sentenced as above. 6. We have heard Shri Pavithran, learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri S. R. Rivankar, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondents. 7. The learned Counsel for the appellant took us through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, more particularly, the evidence on the points of last seen together theory, the extra judicial confession, discovery of weapon of offence and motive. He pointed out various discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and glaring short-comings in so far as CFSL report is concerned. 8. On the other hand, Shri Rivankar, learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment by submitting that the evidence as regards discovery of weapon as well as evidence of last 6 seen together has been proved by the prosecution by adducing clinching evidence. 8. On the other hand, Shri Rivankar, learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment by submitting that the evidence as regards discovery of weapon as well as evidence of last 6 seen together has been proved by the prosecution by adducing clinching evidence. 9. Indisputably, there is no second thought that deceased Luis died a homicidal death which is apparent from the following injuries depicted in the Autopsy report as well as the evidence of PW10 Dr. Sapeco who had noticed as many as 37 injuries on the person of the deceased:- “The following fresh and ante mortem injuries were caused by impact with cutting edged moderate to heavy weapon:- (1) Chopped cut injury 11 X 2 X 3 ½ cms. was seen on right frontal aspect of nasivion to left side of forehead. It was directed from above downwards and inwards and from right to left and had nail cut for the underlying frontal bone with a gap of ¾ cms. upto membranes and brain deep. (2) Chopped cut injury of 3 X ½ X ¾ cms X right side of frontal bone deep. It is just below right eye brow and was directed from front to back and inwards. (3) Chopped cut injury of 3 X ½ X 1 cms. Deep was present below the left outer 2/3rd of eye brows. It was directed from front to back and inwards and from right to left. (4) Chopped cut injury on 1 ½ X ½ X ½ cms was present on left lower eyelid and along its outer third and outwards and has made cut for the orbital margin of the maxillary bone. (5) Chopped cut injury of 9 ½ X 1 X 4 cms. was present from the right side of upper lip, had cut tip of nose upto to the left side of cheek to left mid aspect of lower eye lid. It has cut the underline cartilage of nose and cheek bones. 7 It was directed from left to right and from above downwards and inwards. (6) Chopped cut injury of 5 ½ X 1 X 3 ½ cms was present on left mid cheek upto right outer aspect at angle of mouth. It was directed from above downwards and from front to back and had cut the underline mid cheek region. 7 It was directed from left to right and from above downwards and inwards. (6) Chopped cut injury of 5 ½ X 1 X 3 ½ cms was present on left mid cheek upto right outer aspect at angle of mouth. It was directed from above downwards and from front to back and had cut the underline mid cheek region. (7) Chopped cut injury of 4 X 1 X 2 cms., was present on distal third of left upper lip. It was directed from front to back and from right to left and inwards. (8) Chopped cut injury of 5 X 1 X 3 cms., was present along exposed part of upper lip to the right side of lower lip. It was directed from above downwards and inwards and had cut the underline upper and lower teeth as well as right side of face's chin bone. (9) Chopped cut injury of 5 ½ X 1 X 4 cms., was present along upper third front of chin. It had cut the underline chin bone. It was directed from front to back and front right to left. (10) Chopped cut injury of 2 X ½ X 2 ½ cms., was present on right side of chin just interior to chin angle. It was directed from front to back and front left to right and inwards and downwards and had cut the underline chin bone. (11) Chopped cut injury of 5 X 1 X 4 ½ cms., was present on left upper third of neck front. It was directed from front to back and inwards and from left to right and had cut the underline respiratory passages just above the thyroid cartilage prominence. (12) Chopped cut injury of 6 X 1 ½ X 3 ½ cms., was present on the left lower triangle of neck, front and was directed from above downwards, inwards and from left to right. (13) Chopped cut injury of 3 X 1 X 3 cms., was present on the left side or posterior triangle of neck. It was directed 8 from above downwards and inwards and from left to right with tailing of 2 ½ cms., and had made cut for the body of third cervical vertebrae bone. (13) Chopped cut injury of 3 X 1 X 3 cms., was present on the left side or posterior triangle of neck. It was directed 8 from above downwards and inwards and from left to right with tailing of 2 ½ cms., and had made cut for the body of third cervical vertebrae bone. (14) Chopped cut injury of 3 X 1 X 3 ½ cms., with taliling of 5 cms., was present on left posterior triangle of neck and was ½ cms., at front of injury no.13. It was directed from left to right and inwards to the body of fifth cervical vertebrae bone. (15) Chopped cut injury of 2 ½ X 1 X ½ cms., was present on left lower third of neck 2 ½ cms., above the left mid collar bone. It was directed from left to right and inwards. (16) Chopped cut injury was present along dorsum of right hand at mid phalangeal aspect of right middle, ring and little fingers with perimeter of 3 ½ X 1 cms., X slashing of phalanges. Perimeter was directed from left to right along outer and inner aspect and was seen at (a) From the proximal interphalangeal joint aspect directed towards the nail bed aspect of 1 ¾ X ½ X ¼ cms., on the right middle finger. (b) along the right ring finger of 1 ¾ X ¼ cms X proximal mid phalangeal joint. (c) along the right little finger of 1 ¾ X ½ X ½ cms., along proximal phalange respectively. (17) Chopped cut injury of 1 X ¼ X ¼ cms., each was present along dorsum of right mid middle finger and proximal third of right ring finger. It was directed from above downwards and inwards and from outer to inner aspect. (18) Chopped cut injury of 1 ½ X ¼ X ¼ cms., was present along mid dorsum of right ring finger to the base of right little finger. It was directed from above downwards and from outer to inner aspect. (19) Chopped cut injury of 3 X 1 ½ X 3 ½ cms., was present on left inner aspect of left upper arm. It was directed from below upwards and from inner to outer aspect and from right to left. It was directed from above downwards and from outer to inner aspect. (19) Chopped cut injury of 3 X 1 ½ X 3 ½ cms., was present on left inner aspect of left upper arm. It was directed from below upwards and from inner to outer aspect and from right to left. (20) Chopped cut injury of 3 X 1 ½ X 2 cms., was present along left upper third and inner aspect of left upper arm. It was 1 ½ cms., away from injury no.19. It was directed from left to right and from above downwards and inwards with tailing inwards for ½ cm. (21) Defence chopped cut injury of 3 X 1 X 2 cms., was present on pronated aspect of left lower third of forearm with tailing of 2 cms., It was directed from left to right and from above downwards and inwards. (22) Defence Chopped cut injury of 2 X 1 X 1 cms., with tailing of 2 cms., was present along left mid pronated aspect of hand. It was directed from head of fifth metacarpal bone towards ulnar aspect of wrist. (23) Chopped cut injury of 2 X 1 X ½ cms., was present on left mid aspect of scrotal sac. It was directed from above downwards and inwards. The following fresh and ante mortem injuries were caused by impact with tip of cutting weapon: (24) Incised abrasional cut of 2 ½ X ¼ X ¼ cms., was present on right side chin front. (25) Incised abrasional cut of 1 ½ X ¼ X ¼ cms., was present on right upper and; outer fourth of shoulder front. (26) Incised abrasional cut of 4 X ¼ X ¼ cms., was present on left mid biceps front. (27) Incised abrasional cut of 1 X ¼ X ¼ cms., was present on right side of chest from 4 cms., below right inner end of collar bone. (28) Incised abrasional cut of 1 X ¼ X ¼ cms., was present on left side of chest front 11 cms., below left inner aspect 10 of collar bone. (29) Incised abrasional cut of 1 X ¼ X ¼ cms., was present on right mid chest front. It was 13 cms., below inner aspect of right collar bone. (30) Incised abrasional cut of 1 X ¼ X ¼ cms., was present on right mid chest front. (29) Incised abrasional cut of 1 X ¼ X ¼ cms., was present on right mid chest front. It was 13 cms., below inner aspect of right collar bone. (30) Incised abrasional cut of 1 X ¼ X ¼ cms., was present on right mid chest front. It was 21 cms., below the inner aspect of right collar bone. (31) Incised abrasional cut of 1 X ¼ X ¼ cms., was present on right mid chest front. It was 25 cms., below inner aspect of right collar bone. (32) Incised abrasional cut of 1 X ¼ X ¼ cms., was present on right side of abdomen. It was 4 cms., to the right of navel. (33) Incised abrasional cut of 1 X ¼ X ¼ cms., was present on left inner aspect of navel. (34) Incised abrasional cut of 1 X 1 ½ X ¼ cms., was present along 4 cms., to left and above navel. (35) Incised abrasional cut of 1 X ¼ X ¼ cms., was present 3cms., below navel along midline. (36) Incised abrasional cut of 1 X ¼ X ¼ cms., was present along dorsum of right hand 3 ½ cms., below the right second metacarpal head bone. (37) In any area of 10 X 6 cms., along left inner and upper fourth of high region, there are 7 incised abrasional cuts each of ¾ X ¼ cms., at various sides and directions.” 10. Evidence of PW10 Dr. Silvano Sapeco leaves no room for doubt that deceased Luis died a homicidal death on 5.10.2012. The Autopsy report is proved at Exh.33. The next important aspect would be “last seen together” theory. The law is well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 . The golden principles culled out based on circumstantial evidence can be enumerate as follows:- “1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. 2. The facts so established should be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt and the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. 3. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. 4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. 5. 2. The facts so established should be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt and the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. 3. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. 4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. 5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.” 11. It would, therefore, be essential to scrutinise the evidence adduced by the prosecution in view of aforesaid principles. 12. PW5 Simon Baptista, PW6 Diago Fernandes, PW7 Jose Fernandes and the deceased, were playing carom at Vincy Bar at the relevant time. Appellant was also present over there. The evidence of PW5 Simon Baptista, cousin of the deceased Luis -indicates that on the day of incident he went to Vincy bar to play carom after returning from work at Industrial Estate at Verna. Deceased Luis, Peter, Jose and Thomas were playing carom. The appellant and PW6 Diago Fernandes were present over there. At about 9.30p.m, the owner of the bar stopped their game and closed the bar at about 9.45 p.m. PW5 Simon Baptista, deposed that when he left the bar, deceased Luis, Thomas, Jose, Diago were still there meaning thereby PW5 Simon Baptista had no occasion to see deceased Luis accompanying the appellant as he had left the bar before them. PW6 Diago Fernandes testified that he knew the deceased from childhood. On 5.10.2012 he visited Vincy bar and noticed that the customers were playing carom among them were one Thomas, Peter, deceased Luis and Jose. According to this witness, the appellant, deceased Luis, Simon Baptista left the bar as the game was stopped by the owner who closed the bar at 9.45 p.m. According to this witness deceased Luis and appellant left the bar together. Similarly PW7 Jose Fernandes testified that when he was at Vincy Bar on 5.10.2012 at about 20.30 hours he too had drinks. He noticed Peter, deceased Luis, Thomas, Diago and appellant over there. Similarly PW7 Jose Fernandes testified that when he was at Vincy Bar on 5.10.2012 at about 20.30 hours he too had drinks. He noticed Peter, deceased Luis, Thomas, Diago and appellant over there. The appellant was consuming liquor and watching the game of carom played by them till 9.30 p.m. According to this witness Thomas and Peter left the bar first followed by deceased Luis and appellant who went together. 13. It is not in dispute that appellant was employed as a servant by PW13 Dinesh Mota, who was residing in a out house which was at a distance of 100 metres from the house of deceased Luis. Path way for the appellant and the deceased Luis to reach their respective places was same. Undisputably, Luis was found dead on the path way in front of the house of PW13 Dinesh Mota outside the compound. Dead body of the deceased was noticed by all these witnesses in the next morning. Dead body of the deceased Luis was first noticed by PW12 Nicolau Pinheiro who is a milk man regularly supplying milk in the village. PW12 Nicolau Pinheiro informed PW9 Vincy Andrade. Merely because deceased Luis left Vincy bar alongwith appellant after 9.45 p.m on the fateful night would not in itself a strong circumstance to fasten the guilt of murdering the deceased on him, in the light of the fact that prosecution has not been able to show or establish any motive attributable to the appellant which is a vital factor while evaluating the evidence of the prosecution which is circumstantial in nature. It is nobody's case that at Vincy Bar there was some exchange of words between the deceased and the appellant as both were admittedly drunk. Looking to the number of injuries on the person of the deceased, it even cannot be said to be an assault which erupted in a hit of passion or sudden fight. 14. In that regard it would be significant to evaluate the evidence of PW13 Dinesh Mota to whom the appellant alleged to have made an Extra Judicial Confession which is a weak type of evidence. Doctrine of last seen together necessary implies that when the prosecution proves the said factor then only onus would shift upon the accused to explain as to how the incident had occurred. Doctrine of last seen together necessary implies that when the prosecution proves the said factor then only onus would shift upon the accused to explain as to how the incident had occurred. It would only give rise to a strong presumption which cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt. The learned trial Court in the impugned judgment committed an error of law and fact by erroneously observing that there is a strong presumption against the appellant that he committed the crime and has failed to explain in his statement under Section 313 of Cr. P.C. as to how the incident had occurred. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that prosecution has to stand and fall on its own legs and cannot take advantage of defence raised by the accused. 15. As per evidence of PW13 Dinesh Mota on 5.10.2012 he allotted the work of cleaning the mud behind the house to the appellant and thereafter left the house with his wife and son to Sanvordem. After having dinner at 9.00p.m, PW13 Dinesh Mota and his family went to bed. Around 11.15 p.m. appellant knocked his door. When he opened the door he found appellant in a fully drunken state and was murmuring something. PW13 Dinesh Mota asked him to go and sleep, however, after few minutes appellant again knocked the door. On being asked by the witness as to why he was bothering, the appellant is said to have uttered in Hindi “wo admi, dharu, zagada” PW1 could not understand what he was murmuring under the influence of liquor. Appellant was pointing his finger towards the gate. This witness flashed his torch and followed the appellant till the gate of the compound where he noticed a person lying down in the plants. PW13 Diensh Mota thought that he must be some drunkard which is a quite common thing in that area. Thereafter, he asked the appellant to go and sleep and returned to his house. On the next morning, PW12 Nicolau Pinheiro - milkman- stopped him when he was going by his car and informed that dead body of Luis was lying on the pathway. PW13 Dinesh Mota came to the house and after parking the car saw some people gathered around the pathway. On the next morning, PW12 Nicolau Pinheiro - milkman- stopped him when he was going by his car and informed that dead body of Luis was lying on the pathway. PW13 Dinesh Mota came to the house and after parking the car saw some people gathered around the pathway. He called appellant and asked him in Hindi as to what he was trying to tell him on the earlier night upon which appellant is said to have informed him that he had a fight with Luis on the previous night and that he had hit him with “Coita” PW13 Dinesh Mota was shocked to hear the same, however, he did not disclose the said fact to anyone which sounds quite unnatural. Though it is his evidence that he came near the garage and tried to contact the police at Maina Curtorim, but did not inform the police about the alleged confession given by the appellant. When he reached the spot of the incident police personnel had already reached over there for conducting investigation. The explanation tendered by PW13 Dinesh Mota that deceased being a local person who was killed by his labourer, he sensed that there could be some trouble and, therefore, pretended that he did not know anything does not appeal to ones mind. His natural conduct would have been to immediately inform and handover the custody of the appellant to the police. The act of PW13 Dinesh Mota, if accepted to be true, would tantamount to screening an offender, by giving him shelter despite knowing the fact. It is also the evidence of PW13 Dinesh Mota that on couple of occasions appellant did inform him that deceased, under the influence of alcohol used to trouble and abuse him and even sometimes beat him. It is not the evidence of this witness that he had even disclosed the said fact to any one or even reprimanded deceased Luis. There is no clear evidence indicating that man who was lying outside the gate who was shown by the appellant to PW13 Diensh Mota was the deceased himself in the light of the fact that it has come on record that it is commonly seen in the village that drunkards are lying anywhere. There is no clear evidence indicating that man who was lying outside the gate who was shown by the appellant to PW13 Diensh Mota was the deceased himself in the light of the fact that it has come on record that it is commonly seen in the village that drunkards are lying anywhere. Identity of the person who was fallen outside the gate on the night of 5.10.2012 has not been established by the prosecution that he was none other than the deceased Luis. It is not the evidence of PW13 Dinesh Mota that on the earlier night the appellant had said that he had killed Luis or it was Luis outside the gate. It is not even the evidence of PW13 Dinesh Mota that when the appellant knocked his door twice he could see the blood stains on his clothes or that he was holding Coita in his hand. The law is well settled that when extra judicial confession is made it should be voluntary, and true and made in a fit state of mind. (The extra judicial confessions are not usually considered with favour.) What is required to be seen is that there should be satisfaction of the Court that it is voluntary and is not the result of inducement, threats or promise under Section 24 or brought about in suspicious circumstances to circumvent Sections 25 and 26. It is very important to look into the surrounding circumstances to find out as to whether such confession is not inspired by improper or collateral consideration or circumvention of law suggesting that it may not be true. One of the test which must be passed while accepting extra judicial confession is that must be reproduction of exact words as well as reasons or motive for the confession. Only in such circumstances said extra judicial confession can be relied upon by the Court. It is to be proved like any other evidence. 16. Strangely enough PW13 Dinesh Mota testified that police kept coming to the site on the following days until he had a feeling that his inner sense was telling him it was not right on his part to keep the police away from the truth and therefore suddenly on 8th morning he narrated the fact to the concerned Police Station. This is something which no prudent man would believe. This is something which no prudent man would believe. Thus, so called extra judicial confession made by the appellant to the PW13 Dinesh Mota, is unacceptable and unworthy of credit. These circumstances gives a vital blow to the prosecution story as neither the testimonies on the point of last seen together inspires confidence nor so called extra judicial confession. It is also testified by this witness that he had two “Coitas.” The big Coita was around 40 cms length and smaller one was about 20 cm long which also had a metal handle and used to keep them in the storeroom to which appellant had access who used to cut the plants and trees within the compound wall. When he came to know about the incident, he found big Coita missing. How could he conceal this fact also which creates doubt about the truthfulness and reliability of his evidence. He also deposed that on previous night when the appellant knocked his door he found him wearing blue jeans and white t-shirt whereas on 5.10.2012 the appellant was wearing green shirt and brownish coloured towel around his waist. 17. The CFSL report and the evidence of the expert PW15 Maya S. Nair - Junior Scientific Officer - indicate that there was no blood on the Exhibits, who had examined the articles forwarded to her by Police Station Maina, Curtorim. In her report she has unequivocally clarified that there was no blood noticed over Exh. B, H, I, J, L,O,P,A-1 and B-1. Exh. H is the white shirt of the appellant. Exh.I is the blue coloured jeans of the appellant, Exh. J is yellow towel of the appellant which he was alleged to have been wearing at the time of commission of the alleged offence. Exhibits were subjected to chemical test, microscopic examination and immunological test by PW15 Maya S. Nair. Her testimony has been rebutted during cross wherein she admits that she had detected blood at Exh. E, F, M, N and F-1. Exh. E is the T-shirt, Exh. F is a short, Exh. M is a short pant, Exh. N is a Coita. She detected human blood at Exh. A, C, D, E, F, G, M, N, E-1, F-1 but stain on exh. K was found to be insufficient for serological examination. E, F, M, N and F-1. Exh. E is the T-shirt, Exh. F is a short, Exh. M is a short pant, Exh. N is a Coita. She detected human blood at Exh. A, C, D, E, F, G, M, N, E-1, F-1 but stain on exh. K was found to be insufficient for serological examination. She admits in cross that the AB blood group has negative and positive Rh factor, however, she did not mention the Rh factors in her report by giving unacceptable explanation that blood group AB has Rh positive factor in 95% of Indian population. It is argued at the bar that both the deceased and the appellant had blood group AB however in view of this evidence prosecution has failed to establish link between the 19 articles examined by the experts vis-a-vis the blood group of the deceased. This is significant in the light of the admission by this witness that she cannot say as to whether blood groups AB mentioned by her at sr. no.4 has Rh positive or negative factor. The evidence of PW15, therefore, would not be of much help to the prosecution to conclusively establish a link between the articles seized and the involvement of the appellant. 18. The next important aspect is discovery of facts under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act deposed to by the appellant in police custody pursuant to which prosecution is said to have recovered weapon of offence and the clothes of the appellant. Conditions necessary for operation of Section 27 are that the first condition for bringing Section 27 into operation is the discovery of the fact, albeit relevant fact, in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, secondly, discovery of fact must be deposed to. Thirdly, at the time of receipt of the information accused must be in police custody and the last and most important condition is that only “so much of the information” as relates distinctly to the facts thereby discovery is admissible. Rest of the information is inadmissible. The word “distinctly” means “directly”, indubitably, “strictly” and unmistakably. This word limit and define scope of the provable information. It must be borne in mind that this provision has nothing to do with question of relevancy. Rest of the information is inadmissible. The word “distinctly” means “directly”, indubitably, “strictly” and unmistakably. This word limit and define scope of the provable information. It must be borne in mind that this provision has nothing to do with question of relevancy. The relevancy of fact discovered must be established according to the 20 prescriptions relating to relevancy of other evidence connecting it with the crime in order to make the fact discovered admissible. 19. The evidence of panch witness namely PW8 Pritesh Naik would be important. He testified that he was called at the police station by PW19 Gurudas Kadam along with Rajendra Velip on 8.10.2012 in respect of recovery panchanama under Section 27 of the Evidence Act in a murder case. When he reached the police station Police Inspector Kadam requested two policemen to bring the appellant who was in lock up. When the said person was brought before this witness he was told by Police Inspector to disclose his name and it was the Police Inspector who had stated that the appellant was prepared to make a disclosure statement in Hindi. Panchanama also reveals that at the instance of Police Inspector Kadam, who instructed the appellant to narrate whatever he want says in Hindi, in the presence of the panchas. This is in clear breach of spirit of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. It is clear that it was not a voluntary statement made by the appellant while in police custody and possibility of coercing or pressurising him to depose about the alleged discovery of facts cannot be totally ruled out. This is significant in the light of the fact that appellant came to be arrested only after PW13 Dinesh Mota informed the police, belatedly, about involvement of the appellant in the murder of deceased Luis by means of Coita. It has come in the evidence of PW13 Dinesh Mota that he had two Coitas out of which the bigger one was missing from the garage. Thus, possibility of Investigating Officer already having prior information before “discovery of the facts” at the instance of the PW13 Dinesh Mota cannot be ruled out in the peculiar circumstances of this case. The object of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, is therefore, frustrated. 20. Thus, possibility of Investigating Officer already having prior information before “discovery of the facts” at the instance of the PW13 Dinesh Mota cannot be ruled out in the peculiar circumstances of this case. The object of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, is therefore, frustrated. 20. Relevant portion of evidence of PW8 Pritesh Naik indicates that appellant had green coloured shirt and red coloured underwear on his person at the time of incident and he had wrapped yellow coloured towel around his waist. After committing the murder he had washed blood stains from his hands and legs with the water stored in a plastic drum. The blood stains on green coloured shirt and yellow coloured towel were also washed by him and clothes were put on a rope for drying. He rubbed and washed the Coita by means of the mud and thereafter climbed a wall near the garage and concealed the same at a distance of 3 to 4 meters beneath thorny bushes. As already stated, since the information was already with the police through PW13 Dinesh Mota, it would not be safe to accept the discovery of the fact in so far as weapon of offence is concerned. It has come in the evidence of PW8 Pritesh Naik that though Coita was pointed out by the appellant the finger print expert who arrived at the spot, as per direction of PI Kadam attempted to lift the finger prints on the Coita. There is no evidence as to whether the Investigating Officer could lift any finger prints however it has come on record in the evidence of this witness that finger print expert held the Coita at both the ends, removed it and kept it in the open space by the side of the bushes thereby diminishing chances of lifting the finger prints, if any. Though it is deposed that the expert had sprinkled some powder and tried to lift the chance finger prints, nothing could be revealed by him. As such, alleged recovery of the clothes of the appellant and the weapon would not be within the scope of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, for the reason assigned herein above as there are several discrepancies and lacunae. As such, alleged recovery of the clothes of the appellant and the weapon would not be within the scope of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, for the reason assigned herein above as there are several discrepancies and lacunae. The appellant in his statement under Section 313 more particularly, written statement tendered under Section 313(5) of the Cr.P.C. states that at the police station he was harassed, beaten and subjected to electric current by the police who pressurised him to give a false statement. According to him, he has been falsely implicated in the said crime. This may not be substantive evidence, yet in the given set of circumstances, it would be a relevant fact. 21. There is one more angle to this case. PW19 Gurudas Kadam - Investigating Officer testified that he had pressed the “dog squad” of the police department into service. A sniffer dog was brought at the scene of offence. The sniffer dog after sniffing the dead body of the deceased went towards the house of the deceased and not to the garage of PW13 Dinesh Mota where, according to the prosecution, appellant went for destroying the evidence. This evidence even though is weak piece of evidence, yet this important circumstance cannot be lightly brushed aside which breaks the link required to be established the circumstances. 22. After having closely scrutinized the evidence on record, it would indicate that neither the circumstances if taken together would show that it must be the appellant who had committed crime nor they are so consistent which only point towards hypothesis of the guilt of the appellant. None of the circumstances are conclusive in nature and there are several breaks in the chain. 23. We are, therefore, of the view that the learned trial Court in the impugned judgment has failed to appreciate the evidence in its correct perspective by erroneously accepting the “last seen theory”, extra judicial confession and so also motive behind committing the offence by the appellant and discovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The impugned judgment, therefore, warrants interference in appeal. Now, to the order:- ORDER 1. The appeal is allowed. 2. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is hereby set aside. 3. The appellant is acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code. 4. The impugned judgment, therefore, warrants interference in appeal. Now, to the order:- ORDER 1. The appeal is allowed. 2. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is hereby set aside. 3. The appellant is acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code. 4. The appellant be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in connection with any other offence. 5. The order regarding disposal of property is hereby 24 maintained.