JUDGMENT : Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. 1. We are pained that even basic principle of law that a confession made by an accused while in custody or in the presence of police is inadmissible in evidence, has not been kept in mind by the court below, while concluding trial against the present appellant. 2. In the present case, though two ladies namely Santosh Bai and her daughter Sittu @ Priyanka have been murdered, we are constrained to accept the appeal because the prosecution has failed to complete the chain of circumstances to arrive at the conclusion that the offence has been committed by the appellant Jaswant Singh alone and by none else. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on the night of 18.8.2013, Santosh Bai sister of complainant Hemraj Singh (P.W. 1) alongwith her daughter Sittu @ Priyanka were murdered with an incised weapon. It is further case of the prosecution that on 21.8.2013 accused got recovered a knife and thus, he committed offence punishable under Section 4/25 of Arms Act. 4. The appellant Jaswant Singh was tried by the court of Additional Sessions Judge No. 6, Kota. The said court vide impugned judgment dated 25.7.2015 recorded conviction of the appellant for the offences under Section 302 IPC and Section 4/25 of Arms Act. 5. Having convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offences, the trial court vide a separate order of even date, sentenced the appellant as under:- U/s. 4/25 Arms Act:- to undergo three years RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment, to further undergo additional six months imprisonment. U/s. 302 IPC:- to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo additional one year imprisonment. 6. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 7. Aggrieved against his conviction and sentence, the appellant has filed the present appeal through jail. During the pendency of the appeal, Mr. Dheeraj Singhal has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the appellant Jaswant Singh. 8. Ms. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo additional one year imprisonment. 6. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 7. Aggrieved against his conviction and sentence, the appellant has filed the present appeal through jail. During the pendency of the appeal, Mr. Dheeraj Singhal has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the appellant Jaswant Singh. 8. Ms. Rekha Madnani, learned Public Prosecutor who thoroughly prepared the case and has vehemently defended the conviction and sentence of the appellant, has very fairly submitted that the following circumstances from the prosecution case have emerged against the appellant:- (i) That the appellant made extra-judicial confession to Satyanarain (P.W. 3) in front of Hari Narain (P.W. 8) and Phool Chand (not examined). (ii) That at the instance of the appellant, knife, pant and shirt were recovered vide memo Exhibit-P/11 in pursuance of disclosure statement made by the accused vide memo Exhibit-P/58. (iii) That Smt. Sajjan Bai (P.W. 17) grandmother of the accused has deposed regarding motive on the part of the accused appellant. (iv) That in the report of State Forensic Science Laboratory (Exhibit-P/62), it was opined that the clothes of the accused and the knife were stained with human blood. It is further submitted that Ghaghara, Skirt, Chaddi of the deceased and shirt of the accused were stained with human blood, Blood Group of which has been determined as 'A'. 9. The prosecution in order to secure the conviction of the appellant examined twenty witnesses namely Hemraj Singh (P.W. 1), Rishiraj Singh (P.W. 2), Satyanarain (P.W. 3), Shyam Singh (P.W. 4), Deepak Kumar (P.W. 5), Dr. Smt. Riddhi Kapoor (P.W. 6), Narendra Singh (P.W. 7), Hari Narain (P.W. 8), Jeevan Singh (P.W. 9), Dr. Lalit Kumar Sharma (P.W. 10), Dr. Vivek Goyal (P.W. 11), Vimal Kumar (P.W. 12), Mahendra Singh (P.W. 13), Mahesh Kumar (P.W. 14), Jitendra Singh (P.W. 15), Smt. Ganga Bai (P.W. 16), Smt. Sajjan Bai (P.W. 17), Suresh Singh (P.W. 18), Rambharoshi (P.W. 19) and Salauddin (P.W. 20). 10. The criminal proceedings in the present case were set into motion on the basis of written report (Exhibit-P/1) submitted by Hemraj Singh (P.W. 1) on the basis of which, formal FIR bearing No. 15/2013 (Exhibit-P/15) was registered at Police Station Dewali, Manjhi, District Kota for the offence under Section 302 IPC. 11. 10. The criminal proceedings in the present case were set into motion on the basis of written report (Exhibit-P/1) submitted by Hemraj Singh (P.W. 1) on the basis of which, formal FIR bearing No. 15/2013 (Exhibit-P/15) was registered at Police Station Dewali, Manjhi, District Kota for the offence under Section 302 IPC. 11. Hemraj Singh (P.W. 1) in the court stated that his sister Santosh Bai after her husband had committed suicide was residing with younger daughter Sittu @ Priyanka at village Dewali, Manjhi, Kota. This witness is neither eyewitness nor witness to any circumstances relied by the prosecution. 12. Rishiraj Singh (P.W. 2) had attested the inquest reports Exhibit-P/2 and Exhibit-P/3. This witness stated that in his presence, the police had removed one amulet from the wrist of accused Jaswant Singh alongwith his Ring vide memo Exhibit-P/10. 13. Regarding evidence of Satyanarain (P.W. 3) and Hari Narain (P.W. 8), who deposed regarding extra-judicial confession made by the accused appellant, we shall deal with the same in the later part of this judgment. 14. Shyam Singh (P.W. 4) is the attesting witness to memo Exhibit-P/13 whereby Top and Chaddi of the deceased Sittu @ Priyanka were taken into possession, site plan Exhibit-P/8 and memos of recovery Exhibit-P/12 and Exhibit-P/14 whereby blood stained clothes of deceased Santosh Bai and swab were taken into possession, respectively. 15. Constable Deepak Kumar (P.W. 5) had carried the written report from the place of occurrence to the police station for registration of the case FIR. 16. Dr. Smt. Riddhi Kapoor (P.W. 6), Dr. Lalit Kumar (P.W. 10) and Dr. Vivek Goyal (P.W. 11) being members of the Medical Board conducted autopsy on the dead bodies of Santosh Bai and Sittu @ Priyanka. They also prepared the Post Mortem Report of Santosh Bai and Sittu @ Priyanka (Exhibit-P/17 and Exhibit-P/18) respectively. 17. Narendra Singh (P.W. 7) had attested the inquest report of both the deceased (Exhibit-P/2 and Exhibit-P/3) and memo of recovery of clothes of deceased Exhibit-P/12 and Exhibit-P/13. 18. Jeevan Singh (P.W. 9) is son-in-law of deceased Santosh Bai as her eldest daughter was married with him. 19. Vimal Kumar (P.W. 12) is formal witness who had taken photographs of the spot and the dead bodies vide Exhibit-P/19 to Exhibit-P/48. 20. Mahendra Singh (P.W. 13) had attested the site plan (Exhibit-P/8). This witness has turned hostile to the prosecution. 21. 19. Vimal Kumar (P.W. 12) is formal witness who had taken photographs of the spot and the dead bodies vide Exhibit-P/19 to Exhibit-P/48. 20. Mahendra Singh (P.W. 13) had attested the site plan (Exhibit-P/8). This witness has turned hostile to the prosecution. 21. Mahesh Kumar (P.W. 14) had carried the articles recovered from the spot in sealed packets to the State Forensic Science Laboratory. 22. Jitendra Singh (P.W. 15) being relation had attested the inquest of both the deceased (Exhibit-P/2 and Exhibit-P/3). 23. Smt. Ganga Bai (P.W. 16) stated in examination-in-chief that she has no information or knowledge regarding the occurrence and this witness was declared hostile. 24. Smt. Sajjan Bai (P.W. 17) is grandmother of the accused. This witness is regarding motive. We shall deal with the evidence of motive later. 25. Suresh Singh (P.W. 18) has deposed in the court that on 18.8.2013 he had received written report (Exhibit-P/1) on the basis of which, he had registered formal FIR No. 15/2013 (Exhibit-P/15). This witness further stated that he being Incharge of Malkhana had handed over the articles to Constable Mahesh Kumar (P.W. 14) for onward transmission to State Forensic Science Laboratory. 26. Rambharoshi (P.W. 19) had partially investigated the case and has proved taking of photographs and CD into possession during the course of investigation. 27. Salauddin (P.W. 20) being investigating officer had proved various facets of investigation. 28. We need not notice the medical evidence, as it is not in dispute that both the deceased Santosh Bai and Sittu @ Priyanka had died because of incised injuries caused to them. 29. Now we shall first deal with the evidence of extra-judicial confession. 30. Satyanarain (P.W. 3) in his examination-in-chief stated that the police brought the accused Jaswant Singh to the village. They brought the accused to the house of deceased and there they interrogated him regarding the occurrence. This witness stated that when police brought the accused, he was sitting outside the house. Police called him inside and obtained his signatures. This witness was declared hostile to the prosecution. 31. They brought the accused to the house of deceased and there they interrogated him regarding the occurrence. This witness stated that when police brought the accused, he was sitting outside the house. Police called him inside and obtained his signatures. This witness was declared hostile to the prosecution. 31. In cross-examination, Satyanarain (P.W. 3) stated as under:- ^^;g ckr lgh gS fd eqyfte tloar dks larks"k ckbZ o mldh iq=h dh gR;k ds lEcU/k esa fxjrkj fd;k x;k FkkA mlh lEcU/k esa eqyfte dks ysdj eqyfte ds ?kj ysdj vk;s FksA esjs lkeus eqyfte us ;g dqcwy fd;k Fkk fd larks"k ckbZ o mldh iq=h dh gR;k eSaus dh FkhA ml le; gfjukjk;.k th o Qwypan th ogka mifLFkr FksA ;g dguk xyr gS fd iqfyl us eqyfte ds dCts ls esjs le{k pkdw o isUV cjken dh gksA** 32. Thus, from the joint reading of examination-in-chief and cross-examination of Satyanarain (P.W. 3), it is evident that this witness had never met the accused before the police brought him in the village at the house of deceased. The accused was interrogated inside the house of the deceased. The accused while in custody of the police had purportedly made extra-judicial confession. 33. Sections 24 and 25 of Indian Evidence Act specifically state that any confession made in custody or in presence of police officials is inadmissible evidence. Therefore, on the joint reading of examination-in-chief and cross-examination, we cannot rely upon the evidence of extra-judicial confession. 34. Satyanarain (P.W. 3) in the cross-examination by the counsel for the accused has further demolished the case of the prosecution. This witness has stated that he had not seen the accused committing the murder and he is not aware about the murder. This witness stated that the police had obtained his signatures on memo Exhibit-P/11. This witness further stated that the police had obtained his signatures on blank papers. This witness stated that as to what proceedings were carried by the police, he is not aware. This witness stated that he is not aware whether Hemraj Singh (P.W. 1) had handed over knife, pant and shirt to the police at the house of the deceased. This witness stated that the police conducted no proceedings before him. 35. Now, we shall deal with the evidence of witness Hari Narain (P.W. 8) also. 36. This witness stated that he is not aware whether Hemraj Singh (P.W. 1) had handed over knife, pant and shirt to the police at the house of the deceased. This witness stated that the police conducted no proceedings before him. 35. Now, we shall deal with the evidence of witness Hari Narain (P.W. 8) also. 36. Hari Narain (P.W. 8) in whose presence accused had allegedly made confession before Satyanarain (P.W. 3) has not stated even a single word regarding extra judicial confession in his testimony before the court. Therefore, this witness has not corroborated the testimony of Satyanarain (P.W. 3). Even otherwise, confession made in presence of police being inadmissible cannot be relied against the accused. Thus, taking evidence of Satyanarain (P.W. 3) and Hari Narain (P.W. 8) together, we reject the evidence of extra-judicial confession. 37. Now, we come to the recovery of pant, shirt and knife from the accused. 38. Satyanarain (P.W. 3) is attesting witness to recovery memo Exhibit-P/11 whereby pant, shirt and knife were recovered from the accused. This witness in examination-in-chief has specifically stated that the police in his presence has not recovered knife and pant. This witness stated that Exhibit-P/11 was not prepared in his presence. We shall reproduce the exact words stated by this witness as under:- ^^esjs le{k eqyfte ds dCts ls dksbZ pkdw] isUV tCr ugha dh FkhA Án’kZ ih&11 esjs lkeus ugha cukbZA** 39. Satyanarain (P.W. 3) was declared hostile to the prosecution. This witness in cross-examination by the public prosecutor specifically stated that it is wrong to suggest that the police had recovered knife or pant in his presence. Even though this witness stated that the police had obtained his signatures on the sealed packets regarding recovery of knife and the clothes, this witness stated that the police had obtained his signatures on the blank papers at the house of deceased Santosh Bai. The exact words stated by Satyanarain (P.W. 3) are as under:- ^^;g lgh gS fd esjs rks iqfyl us [kkyh dkxt ij larks"k ds ?kj gLrk{kj djok;s FksA** 40. Satyanarain (P.W. 3) has further stated that he is not aware about the contents of recovery memo. This witness stated as under:- ^^Án’kZ ih&11 esa iqfyl us D;k D;k fy[kk] eq>s irk ughaA** 41. Satyanarain (P.W. 3) has further stated that he is not aware about the contents of recovery memo. This witness stated as under:- ^^Án’kZ ih&11 esa iqfyl us D;k D;k fy[kk] eq>s irk ughaA** 41. Therefore, independent persons who were associated by the police to prove recovery of knife and the clothes, have not supported the case of the prosecution. 42. Now, we shall deal with the report of State Forensic Science Laboratory. 43. It has come in evidence that the investigating agency had sent the clothes of the deceased and the accused and the knife together through Constable Mahesh Kumar (P.W. 14). In the present case, clothes of the deceased were not sent before sending of the pant, shirt and the knife by the police. 44. In the present case, the investigating agency had gone to the extent of planting evidence of extra-judicial confession. They have prepared recovery memo Exhibit-P/11 and had obtained signatures of the witnesses on blank papers. The investigating agency which can go to the extent of planting the weapon, can also go to the extent of sending clothes together having same blood group. The investigation being tainted, no reliance can be placed upon the report of State Forensic Science Laboratory. 45. Furthermore, on the clothes of the accused and deceased, human blood of Blood Group 'A' has been found and blood group on knife has been given as inconclusive. More than one out of six of the population is having Blood Group 'A'. What is the blood group of the accused has also not been proved by the prosecution. 46. Taking totality of circumstances, we shall also exclude the evidence of knife and clothes as in the present case, fair investigation has not been carried. 47. So far evidence of Motive is concerned, we shall not refer to the same because it has come in evidence that the relation of the accused with his grand mother Smt. Sajjan Bai (P.W. 17) were strained over the property and land dispute. Smt. Sajjan Bai (P.W. 17) grandmother of the accused has stated that the accused appellant had given her beating, therefore, she has raised a suspicion that the appellant may have committed the murder. The suspicion cannot take place of proof. Motive alone is not sufficient to come to conclusion that the offence has been committed by the appellant. 48. Smt. Sajjan Bai (P.W. 17) grandmother of the accused has stated that the accused appellant had given her beating, therefore, she has raised a suspicion that the appellant may have committed the murder. The suspicion cannot take place of proof. Motive alone is not sufficient to come to conclusion that the offence has been committed by the appellant. 48. In the present case, the prosecution has failed to complete the chain of circumstances to arrive at a conclusion that the offence has been committed by the appellant alone and by none else. Consequently, we shall extend benefit of doubt to the appellant. 49. As a result of above discussion, the present appeal is accepted and the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court upon the appellant is set aside and he is acquitted of the charges. 50. In view of above, we order that the appellant Jaswant Singh be released forthwith, if in custody and not required in any other case. 51. Keeping, however, in view the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant Jaswant Singh is directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/-, and surety bond of the like amount, before the trial court. The bonds so furnished shall be effective for a period of six months. The bonds shall contain an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against this judgment or on grant of leave, the appellant Jaswant Singh on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court. D.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 573/2018: 52. Learned counsel for the appellant has prayed that in view of order of even date passed in D.B. Criminal (Jail) Appeal No. 730/2015, present petition S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 573/2018 be dismissed as withdrawn. 53. Ordered accordingly.