JUDGMENT S. S. Shinde, J. - This Appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 24th January 1997 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Sawantwadi acquitting all the Accused / Appellants from the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 392 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is as under: The complainant Sahadeo Nhanu Sawant P.W. 4 was serving in State Transport Corporation since 1987. On his transfer, he had joined Sawantwadi Bus Depot at Sawantwadi from S.T. Depot at Kankavali on 05.07.1995. On that day Sahadeo went to Sawantwadi and joined his duties in the morning. His wife deceased Sayali was then serving as a primary teacher at village Ovaliye which was about 1/2 hour walking distance from her residence at Deosu. She too proceeded to her school on 05.07.1995 at about 09.30 a.m from her residence. However, on her way to her school, the Accused No. 3 told Sayali that a snake was lying on her usual foot-path, and she should go by another way. Hence, Sayali changed her way. However, after she covered some distance, the accused no. 1 Manohar and accused No. 2 Santosh caught hold her, made her to fall down, robbed her ornaments and then gave blows of stones on her head and face. Consequently Sayali died on the spot. The accused then went away with her ornaments and other articles. 3. As Sayali did not return to her residence in that evening, and as her husband Sahadeo P.W. 3 had gone to his sister''s village at Kalambist in that night, his neighbours went to Kalambist and informed that Sayali had not returned from her school. Sahadeo and his neighbours returned from Kalambist and made search of Sayali during that night. However, at about 8.30 a.m on 06.07.1995 when he returned to his residence after making search of Sayali, Yashwant Sawant and others sitting at his residence told him that the dead body of Sayali was found in the Nagzari Vhal (Stream-let) which is also known as "Ubhatyachi Vhali'' in the area known as ''Raiche Bharad''. Accordingly, he went to that spot and found a dead body of the women lying there. He recognized it to be of Sayali. He also noticed missing of ornaments of Sayali from the dead body. Number of persons had gathered there. 4. Accordingly, he went to that spot and found a dead body of the women lying there. He recognized it to be of Sayali. He also noticed missing of ornaments of Sayali from the dead body. Number of persons had gathered there. 4. Ladu Jadhav P.W. 1 the Police Patil of village Ovaliye was informed about a murder of a women in that Vhal by one Mohan Gavas. Primary school teacher and Sitaram Naik a police patil of adjacent village Deosu at about 08.00 a.m on 06.07.1995. Hence, they went to that spot i.e. Ubhatyachi Vhali, and found a dead body of a women lying in the bushes of Ukshi at about 50 to 60 feet away from the stream-let. Ladu (PW-1) noticed multiple injuries on the face of the dead body and it could not be recognized. Number of persons had also gathered there. Seeing the condition of that dead body, Ladu (P.W. 1) - the Police Patil directly went to police station, Sawantwadi and orally informed the above facts to the police station officer. 5. P.S.I. Palkar (P.W. 19) the Investigating Officer and police staff then directly went to Nagzari Vhal, where the dead body of Sayali was lying. Complainant Sahadeo (P.W. 3) was also on the spot in that mob. He told the police that it was a dead body of his wife Sayali and somebody had robbed and killed her. Accordingly, police recorded his statement at about 11.00 a.m on the spot which is registered as F.I.R , i.e. Crime No.62 of 1995 (for sake of brevity herein after referred to as "the said crime") at Exh. 50 in the police station. 6. The panchanama of the scene of offence as well as inquest panchanama were held. The dead body of Sayali was taken to Cottage Hospital, Sawantwadi, where medical officer performed the post mortem between 04.30 p.m and 05.35 p.m on 06.07.1995. 7. The police took the cognizance of said offence and started investigation. 8. During the investigation all the accused were arrested. The accused No. 2 allegedly made the statement that he would produce the ornaments of Sayali and accordingly he took the police near Gotha (place where cattle are tied) and produced a Mangalsutra, pair of golden ear rings and wrist watch which came to be sized under the panchanama Exh. 53. 8. During the investigation all the accused were arrested. The accused No. 2 allegedly made the statement that he would produce the ornaments of Sayali and accordingly he took the police near Gotha (place where cattle are tied) and produced a Mangalsutra, pair of golden ear rings and wrist watch which came to be sized under the panchanama Exh. 53. The accused No. 2 Santosh further made the statement that he would produce the stone used in the said crime. Accordingly, he produced the stones from Jungle area and it was attached under another panchanama Exh. 55. Accused No. 2 Santosh also produced the blood stained clothes of his own before police from his house, and they were seized under panchanama Exhibit 61. Accused No.1 Manohar also produced a stone allegedly used in said crime and his blood stained clothes and Ghongadi (Country Blanket) from his residence which were attached under the separate panchanama Exh. 59 and 57 respectively. 9. The accused no. 3 also produced his blood stained clothes from his residence and they were attached under the panchanama Exh. 49. 10. The seized muddemal as well as the clothes of Sayali taken from her dead body were sent to Chemical Analyzer at Pune, who opined that all the clothes were blood stained, and blood found on them was human blood from various groups. 11. The Investigating Officer P.S.I. Shri. Palkar (P.W. 19) also recorded the statements of neighboring persons as witnesses. The accused No. 3 Vishwas Desai also allegedly stated that he wanted to make the confessional statement. Accordingly, he was produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate, F.C. Sawantwadi, who recorded the confessional statement. The confessional statement of Vishwas Desai was collected by the I.O. The Investigating Officer prima facie came to the conclusion that the accused 1 to 4 in furtherance of their common intention robbed the ornaments of Sayali while she was proceeding towards her school by using foot-path between 09.30 a.m and 10.00 a.m on 05.07.1995 and also murdered her. Hence, after completion of the investigation all the accused no. 1 to 4 came to be chargesheeted. The in-charge Chief Judicial Magistrate issued the process against all the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 392 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 12. Hence, after completion of the investigation all the accused no. 1 to 4 came to be chargesheeted. The in-charge Chief Judicial Magistrate issued the process against all the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 392 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 12. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sawantwadi found that the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, hence he committed the case to the Court of Session by his committal order dated 04.04.1996. 13. Thereafter the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sawantwadi, framed the charge against all the four accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 392 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The charge was read over and explained to the accused. All the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The defence of the accused was of total denial. According to the accused, they are innocent. 14. To bring home the guilt of the accused, during the trial the prosecution has examined in all nineteen witnesses in support of its case. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sawantwadi has recorded statements of accused under Section 313 of the Criminal procedure Code. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after considering the material on record and the evidence adduced by the prosecution, came to a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to connect the link between the circumstantial evidence and complete the chain to hold that the accused and only the accused alone had assaulted deceased Sayali, committed theft of her ornaments and valuables and then killed her in furtherance of their common intention. The learned Additional Sessions Judge reached a conclusion that, the prosecution has failed to prove that it were the accused who are responsible for the death of Sayali. As stated herein above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, by the impugned judgment and order dated 24/01/1997, acquitted all the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 392 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence this Appeal against acquittal by the Appellant-State.. 15. We have heard the learned APP for the Appellant - State. None present for the Respondents-Accused. Hence this Appeal against acquittal by the Appellant-State.. 15. We have heard the learned APP for the Appellant - State. None present for the Respondents-Accused. With the able assistance of the learned APP, perused the grounds taken in the Appeal Memo, the evidence led by the prosecution, the documents produced on record, and the reasons recorded by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Sawantwadi in the impugned judgment. 16. It is submitted by the learned APP that, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, did not consider the evidence led by the prosecution in proper perspective. The learned Additional Sessions has failed to properly appreciate the evidence of prosecution witnesses who had seen the accused at the spot where the dead body of the deceased was found. She submits that the Trial Court erred in holding that post mortem notes were inconsistent with the oral evidence led by the prosecution in respect of the time of the death of deceased. She further submits that, considering the over all evidence led by the prosecution, undoubtedly the accused persons were the authors of the injuries on the person of deceased Sayali, and the accused in furtherance of their common intention killed the deceased. It is submitted that the prosecution has proved the fact of recovery of blood stained clothes at the instance of Accused Nos.1 to 3. It is further submitted that the prosecution though the evidence of prosecution witnesses, established beyond reasonable doubt the involvement of the accused in the offence of death of the deceased, so also the prosecution has properly proved the discovery of stones used in the commission of crime, the articles belonging to the deceased, however, the Trial Court did not consider the evidentiary value of the said recoveries and has come to a wrong conclusion that the same could not be used against the accused. She further submits that during trial the prosecution has brought on record ample evidence to show that the injuries found on the dead body of deceased were possible by the articles used in the commission of offence, and the death of deceased was caused due the injuries found on her person. It is submitted that the trial Court erred in discarding the confessional statement made by accused No.3 which clearly established his presence and involvement of all the accused in the crime. It is submitted that the trial Court erred in discarding the confessional statement made by accused No.3 which clearly established his presence and involvement of all the accused in the crime. The learned APP submits that, by adducing cogent evidence, the prosecution has proved each of the circumstance in the chain of circumstances against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and the chain of circumstances is so complete which leads to hypothesis of guilt of accused and none-else. She also submits that the Trial Court erred in holding that the prosecution had failed to establish the time of death and injuries found on the dead body of deceased, and also the time when accused Nos.1 to 3 were found near the spot of incident by the prosecution witnesses. The learned APP submits that the prosecution has succeeded to prove each circumstance independently and chain of circumstances cumulatively to connect the link between circumstantial evidence which leads to a definite and only conclusion that it was the accused persons who had assaulted the deceased, committed theft of her ornaments and valuables and thereafter killed her in furtherance of their common intention. The learned APP therefore submits that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 24/01/1997 in Sessions Case No.12 of 1996 acquitting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 392 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code is illegal, improper and erroneous, and the same is liable to be quashed and set aside. She lastly submits that the Criminal Appeal may be allowed. 17. The prosecution has examined as many as nineteen witnesses to prove its case. The entire prosecution case rests upon the circumstantial evidence inasmuch as, there is no direct evidence available on record in the nature of eye witnesses. It is not in dispute that the deceased Sayali was the wife of complainant Sahadeo Sawant (PW 4) and both of them were staying at Deosu. It is also not in dispute that deceased Sayali was serving as a teacher in the primary school at Ovaliya and she used to go to the said school by walking on all working days from Deosu to Ovaliye and by the said footh-path which was proceeding from Raiche Bharad area, where a stream-let known as Ubhatyachi Vali is situated. It is also not in dispute that deceased Sayali was serving as a teacher in the primary school at Ovaliya and she used to go to the said school by walking on all working days from Deosu to Ovaliye and by the said footh-path which was proceeding from Raiche Bharad area, where a stream-let known as Ubhatyachi Vali is situated. Her school time was 10.30 am to 5.30 pm and the deceased Sayali used to leave her residence for her school by about 9.45 am and the said school is situated at about half hour''s walking distance from her residence. 18. It is true that death of Sayali is a homicidal death, and there is no eye witness to the incident in question or direct evidence of commission of theft or murder of Sayali. The question whether the accused are the authors of the injuries found on the person of deceased Sayali needs to be answered on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution on record during trial. It is required to be noted that the prosecution relied upon the circumstantial evidence to bring home the guilt of the accused, and therefore, the evidence adduced by the prosecution needs to be scrutinized. 19. The prosecution has examined Ladu Jadhav - the police patil of village Owaliye, as PW No.1, who saw the dead body of Sayali on 06/07/1995. He stated in his examination in chief that on 06/07/1995 at about 8.00 am while he was proceeding towards his field, Mohan Gavas - a teacher serving in their primary school, met him and said that a murder of a woman is committed in the area known as Ubhatyachi Vhali. He also stated that Sitaram Naik - a police patil of village Deosu accompanying with Mohan Gavas. Then all of them went to the place Ubhatyachi Vhali and found a dead body of woman lying in the bushes of Ukshi about 50 to 60 feet away from vhali (stream-let). PW-1 stated that he noticed multiple injuries on the face of the dead body with blood stains and face could not be recognized. He stated that about 20 to 25 persons had also gathered there when they went there. He further stated that after seeing the condition of the dead body, he directly went to police station, Sawantwadi and informed orally the facts to police station officer. He stated that about 20 to 25 persons had also gathered there when they went there. He further stated that after seeing the condition of the dead body, he directly went to police station, Sawantwadi and informed orally the facts to police station officer. He stated that on the same day at about 11.00 am he himself and PSI Palkar and police staff directly went to Ubhatyachi Vhal. The police prepared panchanama of scene of offence and inquest panchanama. He stated that the people gathered there, recognized the dead body to be of Sou. Sayali Sahado Sawant. He further stated that the police have recorded his statement in the case after some days. In his cross examination PW 1 stated that the dead body of Sayali was removed from that spot at about 2.00 pm and till then he was there. He stated that PSI Palkar was in their village till that evening and he was with him as a police patil throughout the day. He further stated that on that day PSI Palkar enquired the matter with 25 to 30 persons in his presence, however, he did not record statement on that day. On the next day the police came at about 8.00 am and inquired with 20 to 25 persons and on that day some statements were recorded. In his cross examination, PW 1 admitted that many women used to wash their clothes in Nagazaricha Vahal. The way from Deosu passes by the side of Nagazaricha Vhal and reach to Varachiwadi area of their village, and this is the only way to go to Deosu from their village. He also admitted that high School, post-office and fair price govt. shop for their village are at village Deosu. He also admitted that the cow-boys used to sit in the Nagazaricha Vhal by grazing cattle. He stated that the police learnt about this incident for the first time from him and he met PSI palkar, however, police did not record his statement. He admitted that police have not recorded his statement in this crime at any time. During cross examination a question was put to PW 1 that, "Did you state before police that Sahadeo Sawant killed his wife while she was proceeding to her school on her way at about 9.45 am on 5-7-95 by assaulting her on her head?" PW-1 answered the said question in the negative. During cross examination a question was put to PW 1 that, "Did you state before police that Sahadeo Sawant killed his wife while she was proceeding to her school on her way at about 9.45 am on 5-7-95 by assaulting her on her head?" PW-1 answered the said question in the negative. However, he stated that he has nothing to say if police have filed a document purported to be his statement in this crime. He stated that he was with police during the investigation of crime for about 4 to 5 days since 6-7- 95. PW-1 further admitted in his cross examination that he did not wait on the spot after removal of the dead body of Sou. Sayali at about 2-00 pm on 6- 7-1995, and at that time all police men also left that place. He stated that the dead body was at about 50 to 60 feet away from the usual way. He further admitted that this way is being used by the persons of all three wadis of their village since 6.00 am to 2.00 pm and the persons going to village Kalambist also use this way. He stated that only scooters, motorcycles and bicycles can be driven on this road. He lastly admitted that the area is a busy area. Perusal of the deposition of Ladu Jadhav - Police Patil (PW-1) shows, that the area is a busy area and the way is being used by persons of three wadis of his village since 6.00 am to 2.00 pm, and the persons going to village Kalambist also use this way. It means the foot-path by which Sayali was proceeding to her school was busy way being used by number of villagers of three wadis since 6.00 am to 2.00 pm daily. It appears that the police did not record the statement of this witness Ladu Jadhav, if, according to him, he was with police during investigation of the said crime for 4-5 days since 06/07/1995, and since he saw as dead body of Sayali lying in the bushes of Ukashi at the said stream-let and since he informed the police about the said fact to the police station officer. 20. The prosecution has examined Rukmini Ghadale (PW-2) as a panch to inquest panchanama dated 6-7-1995. This witness has narrated the condition of dead body. 20. The prosecution has examined Rukmini Ghadale (PW-2) as a panch to inquest panchanama dated 6-7-1995. This witness has narrated the condition of dead body. She stated that the police prepared the panchanama of the dead body and she singed on it. She further stated that other panchas have not signed on it in her presence. In her cross examination PW-2 deposed that a police officer was writing that panchanama and it took about 15 to 20 minutes to write panchanama. She deposed that her signature at two places were taken and no other person has signed on that panchanama in her presence. She further deposed that no female or woman was found among the mob assembled there. 21. The next witness examined by the prosecution is Sou.Malti Rane as PW-3, who saw the deceased passing through the road at 9.30 am and, accused No.1 present there. She further deposed that there is stony area in that vhal and some stones are also put by villagers to wash the clothes. This witness (PW-3) also identified the ornaments of deceased Sayali. PW-3 stated in his examination in chief that in July 1995 on the day of the incident, she herself, Sou. Bhagyashali Sawant and Kalpana Sawant went to nagazari Vhal for washing the clothse at about 9.30 am. She further stated that after about 10 minutes of they being reached to the Vhal, Manohar Naik (Accused No.1) of Owaliye then went from Deosu to Owaliye through that Vhal and from about 5 to 10 feet away from them. He was looking around him and he had a Ghongadi (country Blanket) on his shoulder. She further deposed that they were washing their clothes in that Vhal for about 20 to 25 minutes and returned to their respective houses. She further deposed that none other had come to that vhal for washing clothes till they left it. However, on their way to their residence, when they came to Tembh area, they saw Sou. Sayali Sawant proceeding from Deosu to Owaliye by another way which is about 40 feet away from the way they were returning. During her examination in chief, PW-3 identified the ornaments which were on the person of Sou Sayali, they are Mangalsutra, pair of ear rings and a wrist watch. Sayali Sawant proceeding from Deosu to Owaliye by another way which is about 40 feet away from the way they were returning. During her examination in chief, PW-3 identified the ornaments which were on the person of Sou Sayali, they are Mangalsutra, pair of ear rings and a wrist watch. PW-3 learnt in that night that a search was being made of Sou Sayali as she had not returned to her residence till 7-00 to 7-30 pm in that evening. In the cross examination PW-3 admitted that she had no close intimacy with Sayali. She deposed that the police recorded her statement in this case. She further deposed that she had stated before police that while she saw Sayali proceeding towards Owaliye, on that day she had a whitish coloured saree with violate printed flowers, mangalsutra and earrings on her person and a printed coloured umbrella and a note book in her hands. However, this witness (PW-3) did not assign the reason as to why the aforesaid version is not appearing in her police statement, and she does not remember whether or not, she had stated before police that while they were returning from that vhal, none was there for washing clothes. In her cross examination she admitted that agriculturist and cow-boy also use country blanket. She further admitted that she used to go to that vhal even prior to that day for washing clothes and she had seen Manohar Naik while proceeding by that way some times prior to that day. This witness (PW-3) admitted in her cross examination that there is a regular traffic by that way. She further deposed that she had not seen if some other persons except stated by her also went by that way, while she was washing clothes. Considering the evidence of PW-3 Malti Rane, it would be really difficult to believe that this witness (PW-3) could identify all ornaments worn by deceased Sayali on that particular day unless it is proved through proper identification by showing atleast few ornaments of similar type. This witness (PW-3) did not say that she saw accused nearby Sayali or talking to her. PW-3 states that she only saw accused No.1 Manohar and no other accused. It can be seen from the evidence of Sou. This witness (PW-3) did not say that she saw accused nearby Sayali or talking to her. PW-3 states that she only saw accused No.1 Manohar and no other accused. It can be seen from the evidence of Sou. Malti Rane (PW-3) that she and her companions saw Accused Manohar only while he was proceeding from Deosu to Ovaliye from that area by crossing that stream-let. She has admitted that prior to date of alleged incident, she had seen accused Manohar while proceeding by that way some times prior to that day. Therefore accused Manohar was using that way as used by others as he was the resident of that area, and therefore, he being seen there on the date of alleged incident cannot be said to be unusual. 22. The next witness examined by prosecution is Mr. Sahadeo Nhanu Sawant (PW-4) who is the husband of the deceased. He deposed that on 5-7- 1995 he boarded S.T,. bus at about 8-30 am and came to Sawantwadi and joined his duties, and in that evening he went to Kalambist from Sawantwadi as per his earlier schedule to pay amount to his sister Archana Anant Sawant and halted there. He stated that in that night his cousin Soma Sawant, a teacher Gundu Sawant and his neighbour Sakharam Sawant came there from Deosu in auto rickashaw, and told that Sayali went to school in the morning but had not returned from her school. Therefore, he should come to Deosu. PW-4 immediately came to Deosu with them. He further deposed that they did not find Sayali although they took search on their way for her. PW-4 deposed that on his return from Kesari at about 8-30 am on 6-7-1995 Yashwant Arjun Sawant and others were waiting at his residence. Yaswhant told him that the dead body of Sayali was lying in Raiche Bharad area near Nagazari Vhal and that he had seen it. PW-4 himself and others went to see the dead body at Raiche Bharad area, and they found a dead body lying in the bushes of Ukshi. He recognised it to be of Sayali. He noticed the injuries on the right pariatal region and right eyebrows, and both ear lobes were torn, the face was covered by hair. PW-4 himself and others went to see the dead body at Raiche Bharad area, and they found a dead body lying in the bushes of Ukshi. He recognised it to be of Sayali. He noticed the injuries on the right pariatal region and right eyebrows, and both ear lobes were torn, the face was covered by hair. He further stated that there were no ornaments and wrist watch on the person of Sayali when he saw her dead body for the first time on the spot, and in the circumstances, he felt that somebody might have murdered her with a view to rob those ornaments and wrist watch. He stated that police met him on the spot where the dead body of Sayali was lying, and he narrated police his suspicion at about 11.00 am on 6-7-1995. Accordingly police recorded his statement. In the cross examination, PW-4 stated that, he took search for Sayali in that night since about 3-00 am on 5-7-1995. he took search for her at Nhaveli also. He started Nhaveli at about 11.00 am on 5-7-1995. He did not take search at Owaliye, Parpoli, Kalambist and Kesari prior to proceeding to Nhaveli. He reached Nhaveli at about 12-00 midnight and he was there till 1- 00 am. He did not take pains to lodge the complaint in the police station. Though this witness PW-4 stated that he presented Mangalsutra to Sayali at the time of marriage and the earrings were presented by her father, neither he did produce any receipt showing purchase of the said Mangalsutra nor prosecution has examined the father of Sayali to prove the said fact. Even PW-4 did not tell in his deposition the name of the Jweller from whom he purchased the said Mangalsutra. 23. The prosecution has examined Sitaram Sakharam Naik as PW-5, who was the panch witness of memorandum of Accused Vishwas Desai showing the place where they killed deceased Sayali. He stated that on 6-7- 1995 Sawantwadi Police had requested him to act as a panch in the said crime. He deposed that on 6-7-1995 police took him for panchanama to the spot where the dead body of Sou. Sayali Sawant was lying. It was a place where Ukshi bushes were found in Raiche Bharad area near Nagazari Vhal of village Owaliye. PSI Sawantwadi said him that, he has to prepare the panchanma of the scene of offence. He deposed that on 6-7-1995 police took him for panchanama to the spot where the dead body of Sou. Sayali Sawant was lying. It was a place where Ukshi bushes were found in Raiche Bharad area near Nagazari Vhal of village Owaliye. PSI Sawantwadi said him that, he has to prepare the panchanma of the scene of offence. Accordingly they inspected the spot. No dead body was found there. However, they noticed blood had oozed on the ground. He stated that the foot path from Deosu to Owaliye is about 60 to 70 feet away from this spot. The police drew the panchanama and he signed on both pages. 24. The next witness is PW-6 Hanumant Baburao Sawant who was a panch for memorandum panchanama of ornaments, which according to the prosecution, were recovered from Accused No.2. He stated in his examination in chief that, in July 1995 police has called him as a panch in the said crime in the police station at Sawantwadi. Krishna Sawant of his village was also there. Accused No.2 Santosh Soma Sawant was also there with police. PW-6 deposed that, then accused Santosh made a statement before them that he would produce the ornaments and articles of Sayali kept hidden. The police accordingly prepared a memorandum of statement of Santosh in their presence and obtained their signatures on it. Then PW-6, another panch and police were led by Santosh by a private vehicle towards village Owaliye. Santosh asked to stop the vehicle when they reached on the place known as Raiche Bharad. He then led them on their feet for about 1 and 1/2 furlong to a Gotha owned by him. He lifted one stone out of the 2-3 stones lying on the ground and unearthed portion below it by his hand, and took out a poodi (hereinafter referred to as a paper packet) from there. Santosh then unfolded that paper packet and they found another small paper packet in a paper packet. He took out that small paper packet and unfolded it and they found a golden Mani Mangalsutra, two golden ear rings and a wrist watch. He handed over those articles to police in their presence and police seized them under panchanama. PW-6 Hanumant Sawant further deposed that on the next day i.e. on 10-07-1995 police called him for yet another panchanama to the police station Sawantwadi. He handed over those articles to police in their presence and police seized them under panchanama. PW-6 Hanumant Sawant further deposed that on the next day i.e. on 10-07-1995 police called him for yet another panchanama to the police station Sawantwadi. Krishna Shridhar Sawant was the another panch with him. Accused Santosh was then in police custody. Santosh then made a statement before police in their presence that he would produce the stones used in this crime and kept hidden in the Raiche Bharad area. Police then reduced memorandum of his statement and PW-6 and another panch have signed on it. He further deposed that on 10-7-1995 at about 12-30 noon the accused Santosh and both panchas and police party proceeded to village Ovaliye by a private vehicle. The accused led them there and asked them to stop the vehicle i.e., Jeep when they reached the place known as Raiche Bharad. This witness further deposed that this place is also known as Nagazariche Vhal. Then Santosh carried them by a Ovaliye-Deosu footpath and then to another footpath leading to the jungle but for about 20 to 25 paces only from the main foot path. PW-6 further deposed that Santosh then took out a stone from beneath the bush and produced it before police in their presence. It was a rough laterite stone. The police seized that stone under the panchanama. PW-6 deposed that he has signed on it and another panch had also signed on it. Description of the stone given in the panchanama, which was recovered at the instance of accused Santosh is, one unshaped Jambha Stone. However, there is no mention regarding the said stone having blood or blood stains. The prosecution has not brought on record, whether there was blood found on the said stone, and as a matter of fact the same was sent to CA, otherwise such discovery of stone at the instance of Accused No.2 Santosh cannot be termed as significant since stones are available everywhere in rural area. There is delay of three days in visiting the spot and preparing panchnama. Possibility of already managing such articles to match prosecution case cannot be ruled out. In the cross examination PW-6 deposed that on 9-7-1995 itself, the Police Patil told him that Sawantwadi police had called him to Sawantwadi police station as a Panch. The said Police Patil was Ladu Jadhav of ovaliye (PW-1). Possibility of already managing such articles to match prosecution case cannot be ruled out. In the cross examination PW-6 deposed that on 9-7-1995 itself, the Police Patil told him that Sawantwadi police had called him to Sawantwadi police station as a Panch. The said Police Patil was Ladu Jadhav of ovaliye (PW-1). He admitted in his cross that Jadhav had been to his residence with the above message. PW-6 knows Sahadeo Sawant of Deosu since his childhood. He admitted that the writing of memorandum and panchanama is done by police. He further deposed that he cannot say definitely as to how many signatures of him are taken by police in this crime. This witness also admitted that he does not know where accused Santosh was, while he was sitting in the police station. He deposed in his cross that the spot from where the accused Santosh took out ornaments and other articles on 9-7-1995 was not disclosed. He also deposed that 25 to 30 villagers met them on their way to the above spot and came with them. PW-6 admitted that the mangalsutra and ear rings before the Court are the common articles used by many women. It needs to be mentioned here that in a case of circumstantial evidence, when the prosecution is placing heavy reliance upon the alleged recovery of ornaments, it was necessary to place on record the documents/receipts of purchase of such ornaments with identification mark if any. The prosecution is obliged to place on record satisfactory evidence suggesting that, as a matter of fact ornaments belonged to deceased. It is necessary to conduct an identification process so as to identify the real ornaments worn by deceased at the relevant time of incident. Such identification process has to be by keeping similar type of 2-3 ornaments. In absence of placing on record proof of purchase of said ornaments and specific exercise of conducting an identification process, the said circumstance against the accused cannot be said to have been proved by the prosecution. 25. The prosecution has examined Minin Pasku Desa (PW-7) as a panch witness. He stated that on 7-7-1995 police had called him to act as a panch at Ovaliye, Surendra Narayan Desai was another panch. He himself and another panch went to the residence of accused Manohar Naik on the request of police. Accused Manohar was there in the police custody. The prosecution has examined Minin Pasku Desa (PW-7) as a panch witness. He stated that on 7-7-1995 police had called him to act as a panch at Ovaliye, Surendra Narayan Desai was another panch. He himself and another panch went to the residence of accused Manohar Naik on the request of police. Accused Manohar was there in the police custody. Some villagers also gathered there. He further stated that on their reaching there police said them that Manohar stated to them that he would produce the clothes on his person and the country blanket he had at the time of this incident from his house and that they should accompany Manohar and police. Accordingly they accompanied police and Manohar and went inside the house. Manohar then took out a shirt, half pant and the country blanket kept on the bamboo stick from his house and produced before police in their presence. It appears that, the said clothes were lying on the bamboo stick in the house without concealing, as usual in every house. On the next day i.e. on 8-7-1995 police called him (PW-7) to the police station at Sawantwadi. Accordingly he himself and Surendra Desai came to police station at about 8-00 am. The accused Manohar was then in custody of police and in their presence accused Manohar made the statement before the police that, he would produce the stone used in the crime. Accordingly police prepared memorandum of his statement. PW-7 and Surendra Desai have singed on it. Then PW-7 and police accompanied accused Manohar in a vehicle i.e. jeep and went to Raiche Bharad area of Ovaliye. Accused led them on the feet in jungle area about 2 furlong away from that spot. He then took out a stone from a bush and produced before police in their presence. Police then seized it and affixed a label of their signatures and prepared a panchanama of seizure of it. It is required to be noted here that, the contents of the this panchanama and the panchanama of recovery of stone at the instance of accused Santosh as well as the description of stone (except weight) are one and the same. PW-7 further deposed that on 10-7-1995 police again called him to Varchiwadi area of Owaliye. Surendra Desai was also called there. Accordingly PW-7 went to the residence of Santosh Soma Sawant at about 2- 00 pm. PW-7 further deposed that on 10-7-1995 police again called him to Varchiwadi area of Owaliye. Surendra Desai was also called there. Accordingly PW-7 went to the residence of Santosh Soma Sawant at about 2- 00 pm. Santosh was in the custody of police there. PW-7 deposed that the accused Santosh told them that, he would produce the clothes on his person at the time of commission of crime, and that they should act as panchas. Santosh then carried police and the panchas to the second room of his house and took out the hanging shirt having vertical blue strips and a half pant having design of creepers and plants and produced before the police in their presence. The police seized those articles and sealed them and the chits of their signatures were affixed. Such a recovery of clothes from the house does not appear to be attached with significance to advance the prosecution case further) In the cross examination PW-7 deposed that he was at his residence when police called him on 7-7-1995 for panchanama. On that day PW-7 left his residence and straight way went to the residence of Manohar at Ovaliye as per message, then non was accompanied him. He deposed that about 20 to 25 persons had gathered at the residence of Manohar when he went there. He also deposed that the police did not show him any ownership or title deed in respect of the said house at the time of conducting panchnama. PW-7 did not remember, whether or not an accused Manohar was handcuffed at the time of panchanama. He further deposed in his cross examination that, he does not remember as to how many signatures of him were taken by police on 7-7-1995 after the panchanama. He admitted that he knew that on 8-1- 1994 accused Manohar had asked Surendra Desai as to why, he had opened his fair price shop belatedly and that Surendra beat accused Manohar by chappels. He admitted in his cross examination that, the place from where the accused Manohar took out the articles was not closed and covered by any roof, and one can find easily the stones like muddemal article No.17 shown to him in said area from which same is recorded. He also admitted that, there is a over writing on the date mentioned on a chit bearing his signature affixed to article No.18 - stone. He also admitted that, there is a over writing on the date mentioned on a chit bearing his signature affixed to article No.18 - stone. PW-7 further admitted that the complainant Sahadeo Sawant is known to him since his childhood. He stated in his cross examination that, on said date of panchanama he was standing in front of the shop of Hanumant Sawant, and the police came there in a vehicle i.e. jeep and took him for panchanama to the residence of Santosh. In paragraph 18 of his cross examination, PW-7 stated that Article 18 - a stone, is not seized in his presence. The police did not affix the chits of their signatures with gum, but the slips were kept only with those articles. The police did not affix the slips to those particular articles in their presence. In the light of vital admissions given by this witness, alleged recovery of aforesaid clothes and stone etc., pursuant to alleged memorandum statement of accused No.2 Santosh, loses its importance. What is admissible in the evidence is only that portion of the information received from an accused, which relates distinctly or strictly to the fact discovered can be proved. The rest is inadmissible. As stated by said witness, alleged article and stone recovered by police were kept in places which are accessible to any person. Secondly, he stated that such stones are easily available in the said area. 26. The prosecution has examined Madhusudan Krishna Sawant (PW-8) as panch. He stated that on 6-7-1995 at about 5-45 pm he had been to the police station Sawantwadi to inquire regarding the death of Sou. Sayali Sawant. Police then showed him the clothes of Sayali. He has seen the dead body of Sayali on that day itself in the morning at Raiche Bharad area of their village. In the police station police asked him whether those were the clothes of Sayali, and he answered in the affirmative. The police attached those clothes under panchanama. The police prepared panchanama and obtained his signature on it. He stated that Soma Sawant was the another panch. Soma has also signed on it. In the cross examination PW-8 Maddusudan Sawant stated that the complainant is serving in their department. Sahadeo and PW-8 belong to the same village. The police attached those clothes under panchanama. The police prepared panchanama and obtained his signature on it. He stated that Soma Sawant was the another panch. Soma has also signed on it. In the cross examination PW-8 Maddusudan Sawant stated that the complainant is serving in their department. Sahadeo and PW-8 belong to the same village. He stated that he did not tell before the police at the time of panchanama that he had seen the dead body of Sayali. He did not tell before police at the time of panchanama that the clothes which were on the dead body of Sayali early morning on that day, and the clothes shown to him in the evening in the police station were one and the same. He stated that police obtained his two signatures on that day on different papers. Aforesaid version in cross examination clearly shows that, the statements made by said witness (PW-8) in his examination in chief are by way of improvements. 27. PW-9 Suresh Tukaram Sawant, is the next witness examined by the prosecution. He stated that he was a postman of village Deosu since December 1994 till the end of May 1996. Deosu, Ovaliye and Parpoli were the three villages under their post office. He stated that on 5-7-1995 he was on duty as postman. On 5-7-1995 he went to Ovaliye from Deosu by S T Bus road by carrying his bicycle in his hand. At about 9-15 am to 9-30 am on that day when he reached near Nagazari Vhal area, Santosh Soma Sawant was found on the road near that Vhal at about 20 to 25 feet away from the vhal. PW-9 stated that he had a letter addressed to him (Santosh) and hence he delivered that letter to him. He further stated that Santosh is resident of Ovaliye and he can recognize Santosh. In the cross examination Suresh i.e. P.W.9 stated that, he has not received the court summons for today on his address at Mumbai, and the complainant Sahadeo Sawant sent oral message to him at Mumbnai for coming over to here today as a witness. He stated that he did not find anybody else in the Nagazari Vhal when Santosh met him. PW-9 in his examination in chief stated that, Santosh is resident of Ovaliye area. He stated that he did not find anybody else in the Nagazari Vhal when Santosh met him. PW-9 in his examination in chief stated that, Santosh is resident of Ovaliye area. It is not the case of the prosecution that the said area is far away from Nagazari area. Therefore, presence of Santosh in the said area cannot be said to be unnatural. 28. The next witness is Vitthal Shantaram Sawant (PW-10). He stated that on 5-7-1995 between 9-15 and 9-30 am accused Manohar Naik and Vitthal Sawant came to their residence. Vitthal had brought with him bamboo sprout to be used as vegetable for sale. Manohar went away. He purchased three sprouts from Vitthal who sat there for about 15 to 20 minutes. During that period Sayali came to their residence with her daughter Komal to leave her at their residence. However, Komal started weeping. Vitthal then asked Sayali to take Komal with her to her residence. Accordingly Sayali went away with Komal to her residence. Vitthal also followed Sayali. He further stated that in that evening at about 7-00 to 7-30 pm Laxmi, the mother in law of Sayali came to their residence and said that Sayali had not yet returned at home and asked PW-10 and Sakharam Sawant to inquire about her with one Chaure Guruji. He stated that at about 8-00 pm in that night, he and Sakharam went to Gundu Sawant of Ovaliye to inquire about Sayuali Sawant. He told them that on that day Sayali had not come to the school. In the cross examination Vital (PW-10) stated that Sayali waited for about 4 to 5 minutes at their residence while she had been to their residence with Komal in that morning between 9-15 to 9-30 am. However she returned along with Komal. In paragraph 8 of his cross examination, PW10 deposed that accused Manohar was not present when they purchased sprout from Vitthal on that day. He deposed that he had stated before police that accused Vitthal followed Sayali. However he cannot state as to why police have not recorded that Vitthal followed Sayali. Therefore, it is clear that said witness has not seen Manohar and secondly, his contention that Vitthal followed Sayali is by way of improvement before the Court. 29. He deposed that he had stated before police that accused Vitthal followed Sayali. However he cannot state as to why police have not recorded that Vitthal followed Sayali. Therefore, it is clear that said witness has not seen Manohar and secondly, his contention that Vitthal followed Sayali is by way of improvement before the Court. 29. Next witness is Yugandhara Gundu Sawant (PW-11) who is serving in the same school where Sayali Sawant was serving as an asst. Teacher. She stated that Sayali used to put on her person a mangalsutra, muhurt mani, a wrist watch and pair of earning. PW-11 stated that she can recognize these articles. She stated that she saw Sayali last in their school on 4- 5-1995. In her cross she stated that she does not know where Sayali was residing, while she was serving in their school but prior to her marriage. She stated tht the police inquired the matter with her within six months from the said incident. She further stated that she on her own never went to police to give information in this respect during the above period. Her husband also did not go to the police to give information on his own. As it could be gathered from her deposition that, she cannot throw any light on actual incident. Her claim that she can identify the ornaments seen by her on the person of Sayali in the school has no meaning since the said ornaments were shown to her by Investigating Officer for identification purpose, without following reliable identification process. 30. The next witness is Medical Officer Dr. Mahendra Dayaram Dangre (PW-12). He stated that on 19-7-1995 he was on duty and Vishwas Ganu Desai R/o Ovaliye was brought to their hospital by Sawantwadi police station. The police requested them to find out the blood group of Vishwas. Accordingly their technician obtained the blood samples of Vishwas. The technician had taken two phials of blood of Vishwas, one was for their purpose and the another was for forwarding it to chemical analyser at Pune. PW-12 himself and their technician examined the blood group of Vishwas with the microscopic observation and ascertained his blood group. It was B Rh+ ve. The technician had taken two phials of blood of Vishwas, one was for their purpose and the another was for forwarding it to chemical analyser at Pune. PW-12 himself and their technician examined the blood group of Vishwas with the microscopic observation and ascertained his blood group. It was B Rh+ ve. PW-12 further stated that, he also clinically examined Vishwas on that day and he notice the following injuries on his person, 1] An abrasion with errythema on left upper arm and 2] Single abrasion on left side of scrotom. Accordingly he has issued the medico-legal certificate on 19-7-1995. In the cross examination Dr.Dangre (PW-12) stated that, to determine the type of injuries it is necessary to see the length, breadth and depth of injury. He agrees that unless and until one determines whether the injury is an abrasion or cut injury, one cannot infer as to the cause of that injury. He stated that Vishwas was brought to him in a handcuffed position. He deposed that they forwarded the another phial of blood of Vishwas to the Chemical Analyst Pune to confirm the blood group. He agrees that they forwarded the said phial as the chemical analyst is supposed to be more expert than them in this respect. He stated that he has knowledge of different tests of finding the blood group. As per his knowledge there are two such tests. He stated that they used the chemical anti-A and anti-B for test. He did not know the contents of those chemicals components. He further deposed that he did not know how many tests are there to determine Rh facts in the blood. He stated that the full form of Rh is Rhesus. Such Rhesus can be found in the blood of monkey, rabbit also. He deposed that there can be Rhesus factor in all types of groups of blood i.e. A, B, AB and O as well as absence of such Rhesus factor which is called Rh-ve in all such groups of blood. He further deposed that the rhesus group in a blood of particular person never changes. The presence or absence of rhesus must be determined along with the blood group of a particular man to see whether some other blood is of that particular man. 31. Another Medical officer Dr. Promod Prabhakar Valavalkar has been examined by prosecution as PW-13. He further deposed that the rhesus group in a blood of particular person never changes. The presence or absence of rhesus must be determined along with the blood group of a particular man to see whether some other blood is of that particular man. 31. Another Medical officer Dr. Promod Prabhakar Valavalkar has been examined by prosecution as PW-13. He stated that on 10-07-1995 he was present in the cottage hospital Sawantwadi as a medial officer. On that day Sawantwadi police have brought Manohar naik and Santosh Soma Sawant to them for examination of their blood group. He found the blood group of Manohar Naik O Rh+ve, whereas that of Santosh was B Rh+ve. In his cross examination (PW-12), deposed that it is their practice to send the request letter to the chemical analyst for sending the result of the analysis to them of the samples sent by them. He further deposed that the chemical analyst Pune has reported them that the test report of the blood group of Manohar Naik is inconclusive. The prosecution has examined Pandurang Balkrishna Chodankar as PW 14 who is goldsmith. He stated that he knows the complainant Sahadeo Savant. He stated that he has prepared the ornaments as per demand. He has prepared as per his demand a golden mangalsutra within 2 to 4 days. He recognized the mangalsutra article 19. It is prepared by him and he has also issued a receipt mentioning its weight and price to Sahadeo. In his cross examination, PW 14 stated that the other goldsmith can also prepare the mangalsutra like the one at muddemal article No.19. He also stated that he has not made any special mark of identification of this mangalsutra. There are about 8 to 10 models of mangalsutra. It is clear from the deposition of PW-14 that, the other goldsmith can also prepare the mangalsutra like one at muddemal article 19. He did not mention about other ornaments allegedly recovered at the instance of accused No. 2 Santosh. It is not clear from the deposition of PW-14, whether there was an exercise of identification of ornaments allegedly recovered at the instance of accused No.2 Santosh. 32. The next witness is Laxman Shivaram Sawant (PW-15). He stated that he was studying in Xth standard in a school at Ovaliye. He stated that he knows the area known as Nagazaricha Vhal near their village. 32. The next witness is Laxman Shivaram Sawant (PW-15). He stated that he was studying in Xth standard in a school at Ovaliye. He stated that he knows the area known as Nagazaricha Vhal near their village. It is about 1 to 2 furlong away from his house. He further stated that he recognizes the accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 now before the Court. He knows Sou. Sayali Sawant a teachar in their school and her husband Sahadeo Sawant. They are residing about 100 to 150 meters away from his residence. He stated that on 5-7-1995 at about 9-00 to 9-30 am, he had been to Nagazari Vhal for fetching water, then Vishwas was about 100 feet away from him and he saw him proceeding towards Raiche Bharad area. Then he fetched water from Vhal (Stream-let) and returned to his residence. In his cross examination PW-15 stated that, a well situated in front of residence of Naik near his house is about 100 to 150 metres away. He also stated that, it was raining on 5-7-1995 and just prior to it. He further stated that the Nagazari area is about 10 feet higher from the level of Vhal. He admitted that, no male or female were in the Vhal when he had been there to fetch water. He deposed that the police recorded his statement in this crime. He has not stated before them the distance at which Vishwas Desai was seen by him. It is clear from his deposition that he did not see accused Manoar or Santosh in that area at that particular time. If deposition of Laxman (PW- 15) is perused carefully, there is nothing incriminating so as to connect the accused with an alleged incident. 33. The prosecution has examined Mr. Sayaroba Jogi Naik - Police Naik Shipai, Sawantwadi Police Station as PW-16. He stated that on 6-7-1995 he took the dead body of Sou. Sayali after the inquest panchanama, along with the articles on her person for post mortem. He stated that arciles on the said dead body means the clothes only and not any ornament. After post mortem he delivered the dead body to her cousin father in law Dhondi Sawant. He took away all the clothes from that dead body on 6-7-1995 and then produced them on the next day in the police station. 34. He stated that arciles on the said dead body means the clothes only and not any ornament. After post mortem he delivered the dead body to her cousin father in law Dhondi Sawant. He took away all the clothes from that dead body on 6-7-1995 and then produced them on the next day in the police station. 34. The next witness is Shivaji Jijaba Rane (PW-17) who is a police constable of Sawantwadi Police Station. He stated that on 15-7-1995 Police Sub-Inspector Palkar handed over him 14 parcels containing muddemal and the packet in Crime No.62 of 1995 of IPC, and directed him to hand over them to the chemical analyst at Pune. Accordingly he carried the said articles and packet on 16-7-1995 to Pune and handed over them in the office of chemical analyst on 17-7-1995 and obtained the receipt of it and handed over it in the police station on the next day. He further stated that on 25-7-1995 also Police Sub Inspector handed over him another sealed packet containing some bottles and a forwarding letter to hand over it to the chemical analyst at Pune. He stated that, he accordingly left Sawantwadi for Pune on 26-7-1995, handed over the article in the office of chemical analyst at pune on 27-7-1995, obtained a signature of clerk on token of receipt of that article on the copy of forwarding letter and came back and submitted that receipt in their police station. In the cross examination, PW-17 admitted that he has also carried the muddemal articles of two or more crimes together to the above office. He deposed that his signature was not obtained on token of receipt of muddemal to him, on the muddemal register of their police station. He further deposed that he received the muddemal articles in the said crime in his possession at about 5-30 pm on 25-7-1995. Thereafter there were number of buses available to go to Pune, however, he left for Pune by a bus of 5-00 pm on 26- 7-1995. He further deposed that he could not leave for Pune on 25-7-1995 as there was no S T Bus to go to Pune. 35. The next witness examined by the prosecution is Mr. Madhav Vitthal Kulkarni as PW-18 who is the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Sawantwadi. He further deposed that he could not leave for Pune on 25-7-1995 as there was no S T Bus to go to Pune. 35. The next witness examined by the prosecution is Mr. Madhav Vitthal Kulkarni as PW-18 who is the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Sawantwadi. He stated on 19-9-1995 one Vishwas Ganu Desai was brought to him by Sawantwadi Police with a request to record his confession. Accordingly he made the preliminary enquiry with him. He asked the accused Vishwas as to whether he wanted to make a voluntary confession to which he replied in the affirmative. This was done in his chamber in the court premises. Mr. Madahv Kulkarni (PW-18) explained the accused Vishwas that he was not bound to make any confession. The accused was then in the Magisterial custody. He stated that while he was explaining the accused and questioning him, the police were not nearby or in the court prescient in the first floor. PW18 satisfied himself that the accused wanted to make a confession voluntarily. Then PW-18 prepared questionnaires and recorded the answers given by the accused in his own handwriting. He prepared a memorandum of questionnaires and answers of accused. The answers are recorded in his (PW18) handwriting. On that day he sent back the accused to Magisterial custody giving him 48 hours for reflection. PW-18 stated that on 21-9-1995 accused Vishwas was again produced before him in the Court hall at about 11-00 am. He directed the jail guards to be away on the ground floor as the court hall is on the first floor. PW-18 took the accused in the custody of his peon, and he asked the accused as to when he was arrested and how long he was in the police custody. He made physical search of the accused to ascertain whether he had received any physical ill treatment. PW-18 ascertained as to whether accused wanted to make the confessional statement voluntarily. Accused Vishwas said that he wanted to make the voluntary confession. PW-18 also cautioned the accused Vishwas that if he would make confession that his statement could be used against him in this crime. Even then accused insisted that he should record his confessional statement. PW-18 further stated that thereafter he started recording his confessional statement. Accused Vishwas said that he wanted to make the voluntary confession. PW-18 also cautioned the accused Vishwas that if he would make confession that his statement could be used against him in this crime. Even then accused insisted that he should record his confessional statement. PW-18 further stated that thereafter he started recording his confessional statement. PW-18 by seeing the said confessional statement, stated that the accused Vishwas said to him that, accused Santosh said to accused Vishwas that the later should accompany the former towards the river area and asked a lady teacher not to go by the foot path as there was a snake, and that she should go by some other way. He has further stated that he accompanied Santosh, went to the spot and did the job by diverting the said lady teacher to go by some other way. He has further stated that later on other accused assaulted that lady teacher. Accused Vishwas was asked to throw a notebook in the river nearby. PW-18 recorded the confessional statement of Vishwas accordingly. PW-18 obtained the signature of accused Vishwas just below his statement recorded in his presence on his dictation. PW-18 also signed on token of obtaining his signature in his presence. Thereafter PW-18 prepared a certificates below the above confessional statement as per Criminal Manual and in his own handwriting. In the cross examination, PW-18 stated that the answer given by accused Vishwas to question No.15 of the questionaries dated 19-9-1995 can be interpreted to say that the accused Vishwas was unnecessarily involved in the crime. PW-18 further stated in his cross examination that there could be the intention of accused Vishwas in making this confessional statement to take the revenge against the other accused as he felt that he was unnecessarily involved in a murder case considering the reply to the question No.15 of the questionnaires dated 19-9-1995. In his cross examination PW-18 admitted that he did not issue the directions to the jail authority to keep this accused Vishwas in a separate room or away from the other persons in the jail. During cross examination a suggestion was given to PW-18 that the confessional statement of accused is made by him under the influence of police and revenge against accused Nos.1 and 2. PW-18 admitted that he did not administer oath to accused Vishwas while recording his confessional statement. During cross examination a suggestion was given to PW-18 that the confessional statement of accused is made by him under the influence of police and revenge against accused Nos.1 and 2. PW-18 admitted that he did not administer oath to accused Vishwas while recording his confessional statement. Therefore, such alleged confessional statement cannot be believed and deserves to be discarded. 36. The last witness examined by the prosecution is the Investigating Officer Mr. Raghunath Gopal Palkar (PW-19). He stated that on 5-4-1995 police patil of ovaliye came to their police station and informed him that a dead body of one Sayali Sahadeo Sawant was lying in the bushes at Nagazari area of Ovaliye. Accordingly the information was recorded in the station diary. He stated that immediately he went to village Ovaliye to confirm as to, what was the matter and then he proceeded to Raiche Bharad area where he found a dead body lying in the bushes. The complainant Sahadeo Sawant was also there and he told him that it was a dead body of his wife Sou.Sayali. Sahadeo also complained him that somebody had murdered his wife Sou. Sayali and also committed theft of her ornaments. PW-19 recorded his statement. He stated that he took over the charge of investigation of this crime. On the same day he held the inquest panchanama in presence of panch Rukmini Krishna Ghogale and two others. He arranged for forwarding the dead body of Sayali to Cottage Hospital, Sawantwadi for postmortem and report. The panchanama of the place where the dead body of Sayali was lying was also held on the same day. By the said panchanama the articles viz. An umbrella, a pair of slipper, a belt of writ watch, 9 pieces of bangles, a hair pin, Muhurtmani with black bid lying near by were seized, and the sample of ordinary loose earth and the blood stained loose earth were also taken. On the same day he recorded the statements of Malati Rane and others. During investigation he seized the clothes on the person of Sayali. On 7-7-1995 he recorded the statements of Sakharam Sawant, Vitthal Shantaram Sawant and others. He stated that on the basis of information collected till that day, it was revealed that Manohar Naik, Suresh Sawant and Vitthal Krishna Sawant were involved in this Crime. During investigation he seized the clothes on the person of Sayali. On 7-7-1995 he recorded the statements of Sakharam Sawant, Vitthal Shantaram Sawant and others. He stated that on the basis of information collected till that day, it was revealed that Manohar Naik, Suresh Sawant and Vitthal Krishna Sawant were involved in this Crime. Hence a search of residence of Manohar was taken on that day and he seized the country blanket and his shirt of sky colour under panchanama. He further stated that on the same day Manohar Naik, Suresh Sawant and Vitthal Sawant were arrested by him. However, it was revealed later on that Suresh Sawant had no concern with this crime and hence he was released after some days. PW-19 stated that on 8-7-1995 Manohar Naik made a statement while in his custody that, he would produce the stone used in the said crime. PW-19 recorded the memorandum of his statement. PW-19 stated that it was seized under the panchanama. On 9-7-1995 he arrested accused Santosh. He made a statement before him and panchas that he would produce the ornaments of Sayali kept by him. Accordingly memornadum of his statement was prepared and, a golden Mangalsutra, two golden ear rings and a ricoh make wrist watch were seized under panchanama. PW-19 stated that on 10-7-1995 accused Santosh made a statement while he was in police custody that he would produce a stone used in this crime and accordingly memorandum of his statement was made in presence of panchas. It was seized under the panchanama. PW-19 took search of residence of accused Santosh and a sky blue coloured half shirt and a half pant having green coloured with yelloish strips were seized under panchanama. PW-19 stated that the ornaments produced by accused Santosh were shown to the complainant who identified there to be of his wife, and accordingly supplementary statement of complainant was recorded. On 18-7-1995 it was revealed that accused Vishwas Desai had helped the other accused in this crime and hence PW-19 arrested him. 37. In his cross examination PW-19 Investigating Officer admitted that the investigation of the crime starts on the registration of the crime. He also admitted that the complaint bears an endorsement that the crime was registered at 13-45 hours on 6-7-1995. He also admitted that the timing mentioned on the inquest panchanama is 12-45 to 13-45 hours. 37. In his cross examination PW-19 Investigating Officer admitted that the investigation of the crime starts on the registration of the crime. He also admitted that the complaint bears an endorsement that the crime was registered at 13-45 hours on 6-7-1995. He also admitted that the timing mentioned on the inquest panchanama is 12-45 to 13-45 hours. He deposed that he did not confirm as to, whether or not the slips of the signatures of panchas are intact on the articles sent to the Chemical Analyst. He deposed that he did not remember whether or not he has recorded the statements of Malati and others who have seen the accused Manohar going from the spot of incident along with Ghongadi on the seizure of that Ghongadi and the clothes of accused Manohar. PW-19 further deposed that accused Vishwas is arrested at about 3-30 pm on 18-7-1995. As a statement of accused Vishwas was recorded earlier on 18-7-1995 in respect of this crime and hence his statement was again not recorded in this respect while drawing the panchanama of seizure of his clothes. He admitted that witness Vitthal Shantaram Sawant (PW10) has not stated before him that accused No.4 Vitthal Sawant chased Sayali. 38. From the perusal of the aforesaid evidence led by the prosecution on record during trial, it is clear that there is no eye witness or direct evidence of commission of theft or murder of deceased Sayali. The evidence which has been relied upon by the prosecution is the circumstantial evidence so as to bring home the guilt of the accused. By adducing oral evidence the prosecution tried to prove that some of the witnesses have allegedly seen Accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 near the spot of incident at the relevant period. The prosecution has also placed reliance on deposition of PW-3 Malti Rane, PW-9 Suresh Sawant, PW-15 Laxman Sawant, Post Mortem report, alleged recovery of articles and blood stained clothes of Accused Nos.1 to 3 as well as Chemical Analyzer's report and the confessional statement of Accused No.3. As stated herein above that the prosecution has not examined the Medical Officer who performed the post mortem of dead body of Sayali. Perusal of aforesaid three witnesses shows that, PW-3 categorically stated that she had not seen any other persons except Accused No.3. As stated herein above that the prosecution has not examined the Medical Officer who performed the post mortem of dead body of Sayali. Perusal of aforesaid three witnesses shows that, PW-3 categorically stated that she had not seen any other persons except Accused No.3. She did not even utter a word about the presence of accused Santosh and accused Vishwas. Similarly PW-9 Suresh Sawant stated in his deposition that he had only met with Santosh and he did not state about Accused Manohar and Accused Vishwas, so also PW-15 Laxman stated that except seeing Accused Vishwas, no male or female in the Vhal when he had there to fetch water and he did not utter a word about Accused Manohar and Santosh. It means these witnesses has stated about the accused seen separately at different time. Therefore their evidence cannot be said to be reliable. 39. It is true that the death of Sayali is a homicidal death. However, the important question which needs to be answered is, whether the Respondents i.e. the original Accused are the authors of injuries suffered by deceased Sou Sayali. As already observed, the entire prosecution case rests upon circumstantial evidence, and therefore, the prosecution was obliged to bring on record the incriminating circumstances, and thereafter to prove each circumstance independently by bringing on record cogent and trustworthy evidence, and after proving each circumstance to establish firmly the link of circumstances, so as to complete the chain of incriminating circumstances to bring home the guilt of the accused. However, in the present case, the evidence on the material aspects is not brought on record by the prosecution. 40. So far as aspect of last seen is concerned, the prosecution has examined Vitthal Sawant (PW-10). Perusal of the deposition of PW-10 shows that Accused No.1 was not at the residence of PW-10 when deceased Sayali had come there, and only Accused No.4 Vitthal was present when she had come there. Though PW-10 in his deposition has stated that accused Vitthal followed Sayali, he has not stated the said fact before the Investigating Officer. Even if it is assumed that accused Vitthal followed Sayali, that itself cannot be said to be sufficient evidence against the Accused No.4 Vitthal. Though PW-10 in his deposition has stated that accused Vitthal followed Sayali, he has not stated the said fact before the Investigating Officer. Even if it is assumed that accused Vitthal followed Sayali, that itself cannot be said to be sufficient evidence against the Accused No.4 Vitthal. Through the evidence of this witness (PW-10) the prosecution, except the fact that Sayali had been to the residence of this witness when accused No.4 Vitthal was at the residence of PW-10 at that time, no substantiating evidence has been brought on record against the accused. The another witness on this point examined by the prosecution is Malati Rane (PW-3) who had gone to Nagazari Vhal for washing clothes at 9-30 am along with Bhagyashali Sawant and Kalpana Sawant. She stated in her evidence that nobody was washing the clothes on that Vhal prior to their going there, and after about 10 minutes from reaching of them, accused No.1 Manohar went from Deosu to Ovaliye through that Vhal and from about 5 to 10 feet away from her. According to her the accused No.1 was looking around him and he had a Ghongadi on his shoulder. She categorically stated in her evidence that till she left that Vhal, none other had come to that Vhal for washing the clothes. During her cross examination she has deposed that she had seen the accused No.1 Manohar while proceeding by that way some times prior to that day also and there is a regular traffic by that road way. 41. The another witness is Ladu Jadhav (PW-1) the police patil of village Ovaliye who has stated in his deposition that Raiche Bgharad area is a busy area and the way in question is being used by persons of three wadis of his village since 6-00 am to 2-00 pm, and the persons going to village Kalambist also used this way. It is clear from evidence of PW-1 that the footpath by which Sayali was proceeding or witness Malati Rane (PW-3) was proceeding was the busy way being used by number of villagers since 6-00 am to 2-00 pm daily. There is another witness Suresh Sawant (PW-9) who was the postman of village Deosu. It is clear from evidence of PW-1 that the footpath by which Sayali was proceeding or witness Malati Rane (PW-3) was proceeding was the busy way being used by number of villagers since 6-00 am to 2-00 pm daily. There is another witness Suresh Sawant (PW-9) who was the postman of village Deosu. According to him on 5-7-1995 he went to Ovaliye from Deosu by ST Bus road by carrying his bicycle in his hand on his feet and at about 9-15 am to 9-30 am on that day he reached near Nagazari Vhal area and found accused No.2 Santosh Sawant on the road near that Vhal at about 20 to 25 feet away from that Vhal. This witness (PW-9) stated that he had a letter addressed to accused No.2 Santosh for delivery, and hence he delivered that letter to accused No.2 Santosh. PW-9 stated that he had no court summons addressed to him at Mumbai, and on by sending message to him by informant Shahadeo Sawant he has come before the Court. It is true that, informant is very much interested in this case and it is natural that he would see that all the necessary evidence is produced before the court and the culprits are sentenced. 42. PW-15 Laxman Sawant in his deposition stated that he recognized the accused Nos.1, 3 and and he was also knowing Sayali and her husband Sahadeo. He stated that on 5-7-1995 at about 9-00 to 9-30 am he had been to Nagazaricha Vhal for fetching water, then accused Vishwas was about 100 feet away from him i.e. from that Vhal. During his cross PW-15 stated that no male or female were in that Vhal when he had been to there to fetch water. If according to this witness PW-15, he had seen Vishwas at that spot at the relevant time, while the other witnesses, i.e. PW-3 and PW-9 who had been in that area during the relevant period, has not seen accused No.3 Vishwas there. PW-3 Malti and her companions saw accused No.1 Manohar only while he was proceeding from Deosu to Ovaliye from that area by crossing that stream-let while PW-9 Suresh Sawant delivered a letter addressed to Accused No.2 Santosh at a place which is about 100 feet from that Vhal at the relevant time. PW-3 Malti and her companions saw accused No.1 Manohar only while he was proceeding from Deosu to Ovaliye from that area by crossing that stream-let while PW-9 Suresh Sawant delivered a letter addressed to Accused No.2 Santosh at a place which is about 100 feet from that Vhal at the relevant time. And PW-15 Laxman Sawant saw accused No.3 Vishwas while proceeding from Nagazaricha Vhal during the same period. According to PW-15 Laxman he did not see any other male or female in the area of that vhal when had been there for fetching water. PW-3 Malati Rane did not utter a word in her evidence that she ever saw Suresh Sawant (PW-9) or Laxman Sawant (PW-15) or either of accused Nos.2 and 3 during the said period near that Vhal. Neither PW-9 Suresh Sawant says that he saw Malati or Laxman or accused Nos.1 and 3 in that area, nor Laxman says that he saw Malati or Suresh and accused Nos. 1 and 2 during the said period near that Vhal. Considering the evidence of these three witness which shows that at about 9-15 to 9-30 am on 5-7-1995 accused No.1 Manohar went from Deosu to Ovaliye from that vhal, accused No.2 Santosh was seen standing near that Vhal whereas accused No.3 Vishwas was proceeding towards Raiche Bharad area, and at the same time deceased Sayali was also proceeding towards her school on her feet from that area. However, none of these witnesses has seen accused No.4 Vitthal Krishna Sawant, who, according to PW-10 had followed Sayali when she had been to his residence, in that area. 43. So far as the injuries found on the person of Sayali are concerned, there is a medical evidence in the form of Post Mortem report. It is important to note at this stage that the prosecution has not examined before the Court the medical officer who has carried out he post mortem of dead body of Sayali and prepared the post mortem note. Dr. M R Patil, Medical Officer, Cottage Hospital, Sawantwadi has issued a certificate Exhibit 78 wherein he has stated that he has done the post mortem examination on the dead body of Sayali Sahadev Sawant on 6/7/95 at 4.30 pm and completed the same at 5.55 pm, and after completing external and internal examination he was of the opinion that the cause of death is (illegible) cranial injury. Perusal of Post Mortem Notes (Exhibit 79) it shows that in column No.17, it is mentioned that as many as six injuries on the face and pariatal region of Sayali were found and, in Column No.19 it is mentioned that there were as many as 8 fractures on the pariatal, temporal and frontal bone as well as maxilla, Zygoma of Sayali. There was also brain edumatus. The cause of death mentioned in the PM notes is "Death due to cardio respiratory failure due to cranio cerebral injury. It is required to be noted at this stage that in column No.21 of PM notes it is mentioned that the death was caused after 5 hours of the last meal. In column No.17 the age of the injuries is stated to be about 24 hours. It is clear from the PM notes that the injuries found on the person of Sayali were sustained about 24 hours next before the post mortem between 4-30 pm and 5-30 pm on 6-7- 1995 and that Sayali died after 5 hours of her last meal. However, there is absolutely nothing on record to show as to at what time Sayali took her meals on 5-7-1995. If deceased Sayali had taken her meals on 5-7-1995 just prior to proceeding to her school i.e. between 9-00 am and 9-30 am, then her death must have occurred between 2-00 pm and 3-00 pm. The prosecution has failed to explain as to whether death of Sayali occurred between 2-00 pm and 3-00 pm i.e. after 5 hours of her meal and the injuries on her person were sustained between 4-30 pm to 5-30 pm on 5-7-1995 i.e. 24 hours prior to the post mortem, as per PM Notes. As rightly observed by the Trial Court, it cannot be believed that Sayali was killed between 2-30 pm and 3-00 pm on 5- 6-1995 and she was injured at about 4-30 pm to 5-30 pm on 5-7-1995 i.e. about 2 hours after the death. There was no reason for anybody to kill Sayali first and then sustain injuries to her. Unfortunately the medical officer who carried out the post mortem of dead body of Sayali has not been examined by the prosecution so as to ascertain whether the injuries mentioned by him in Column No.17 of PM were sustained prior to the death of Sayali. Unfortunately the medical officer who carried out the post mortem of dead body of Sayali has not been examined by the prosecution so as to ascertain whether the injuries mentioned by him in Column No.17 of PM were sustained prior to the death of Sayali. Therefore the Trial Court has rightly held that by no stretch of imagination it can be said that Sayali sustained the injuries mentioned in the post mortem note (Exhibit 79) between 9-00 am and 9-30 am on 5-7-1995, and if this is so then how any of the accused can be held responsible for causing these injuries to Sayali between 9-45 am and 10-30 am on 5-6-1995 as stated in the charge sheet and the charge framed against them by considering the evidence that some witnesses have seen each of the accused separately during that period in that area. It can be seen from post mortem notes (Exhibit 79) that the death of Sayali must have occurred after 3-00 pm on 5-7-1995. There is no cogent and corroborative evidence led by the prosecution in support of the post mortem notes. The post mortem notes (Exhibit 79) are not consistent with the oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses who have stated that separately they have seen accused Nos. 1 to 3 near Raiche Bharad at different times between 9-00 am to 10-00. There is no cogent and reliable evidence led by the prosecution to show that the accused are the authors of the injuries found on the person of Sayali and they are in furtherance of their common intention killed Sayali. 44. Now coming to the alleged discovery statements made by accused Nos.1, 2 and 3. In so far as Accused No.1 Manohar is concerned, he allegedly made a statement leading to discovery of the articles at his instance. In this regard evidence of Minin Desa (PW-7) does not show that the statement allegedly made by accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act leading to the discovery of articles alleged produced by accused Manohar is recorded. The prosecution has not produced such a statement before the Court. PW-7 Minin Desa does not say that accused No.1 Manohar made any such statement before panchas. Therefore the alleged recovery of blood stained shirt, half pant and country blanket belonging to accused No.1 has no evidentiary value. The prosecution has not produced such a statement before the Court. PW-7 Minin Desa does not say that accused No.1 Manohar made any such statement before panchas. Therefore the alleged recovery of blood stained shirt, half pant and country blanket belonging to accused No.1 has no evidentiary value. It can be seen from the evidence of Minin Desa (PW-7) that those articles were kept open at the residence of accused No.1 Manohar and the said house of accused No.1 was also accessible to all members of the family. Therefore it cannot be held that the said clothes were discovered at the instance of or on the basis of statement made by accused No.1 Manohar while he was in police custody. In so far as statement made by accused No.1 that he would show the place and produce the stone which is kept hidden and which is used to murder Sayali is concerned, it is required to be mentioned at this stage, as rightly observed by the Trial Court that the said statement does not bear his signature and/or thumb impression, and therefore, it cannot be said that the statement of accused No.1 was voluntary or otherwise and therefore the same is unreliable in evidence. 45. In so far as accused No.2 Santosh is concerned, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of Minin Desa (PW-7) who was acted as a panch witness at the request of police. Surrendera Desai was another panch witness. The police told these panch witnesses that accused No.2 Santosh told them that he would produce the clothes on his person at the time of commission of crime. The evidence of Minin Desa (PW-7) does not show that the police has recorded the alleged statement of accused No.2 Santosh leading to the discovery of place where he had kept the articles and readiness to produce those articles. The prosecution has not produced such a statement before Court. Considering the evidence of Minin Desa (PW-7) the place shown by accused No.2 Santosh was easily accessible by the members of the family of Santosh and his relatives and friends. 46. Accused No.2 Santosh also made a statement that he would show the place where the articles of Sayali are kept and he would produce them. Considering the evidence of Minin Desa (PW-7) the place shown by accused No.2 Santosh was easily accessible by the members of the family of Santosh and his relatives and friends. 46. Accused No.2 Santosh also made a statement that he would show the place where the articles of Sayali are kept and he would produce them. In this regard, prosecution has led evidence of Hanumkan Sawant (PW-6), who at the instance of police acted as a panch witness in this case. Krishna Swant was the another panch. Accordingly police prepared the memorandum of statement of Santosh (Exhibit 52). PW-6 signed on it. Similar is the case of Accused No.2 so far as discovery is concerned like discovery at the instantce of accused No.1. Therefore this alleged discovery of articles and production of them at the instance of Accused No.2 Santosh has no evidentiary value and can not be relied upon. Similar is the case as regards statement made by Accused No.2 Santosh that he would show the stone used in this crime and he would produce the said stone. The said statement is at Exhibit 54. This statement also cannot be relied upon. 47. Now coming to the case of Accused No.3 Vishwas. Sitaram Naik (PW-5) stated that police called him for panchanama to police station. Another panch was Hanumant Sawant. Police told the panchas that accused No.3 Vishwas Desai told them that he would show the spot where Sayali was killed, and would tell how she was killed . According to PW-5 the accused No.3 Vishwas led them to road near the spot of incident and told them that he would show as to where he had thrown the note book taken from Sayali, and showed the place where he had thrown a note book in the stream-let. However, no note book was found there. It appears that the alleged statement of accused No.3 Vishwas leading to the discovery of the fact is not recorded, at least nor same is seen. Similar is the case as regards making of statement by accused No.3 Vishwas leading to the discovery of blood stained clothes from his house. Again the police have not recorded the alleged statement of accused No.3 Vishwa. The place from where the accused No.3 allegedly took the clothes and produced before police was the open place easily accessible to any person. 48. Again the police have not recorded the alleged statement of accused No.3 Vishwa. The place from where the accused No.3 allegedly took the clothes and produced before police was the open place easily accessible to any person. 48. In this context a useful reference could be made to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amitsingh Bhikamsing Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra, (2007) AIR SC 676 wherein in paragraph 29 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has summed up various requirements of Section 27 of Evidence Act which are reproduced as follows :- i) The fact of which evidence is sought to be given must be relevant to the issue. It must be borne in mind that the provisions has nothing to do with question of relevancy. The relevancy of the fact discovered must be established according to the prescriptions relating to relevancy of other evidence connecting it with the crime in order to make the fact discovered admissible. ii) The fact must have been discovered. iii) The discovery must have been in consequence of some information received from the accused and not by accused's own act. iv) The persons giving the information must be accused for any offence. v) He must be in the custody of a police Officer. vi) The discovery of a fact in consequence of information received from an accused in custody must be deposed to. vii) Thereupon only that portion of the information which relates distinctly or strictly to the fact discovered can be proved. The rest is inadmissible. 49. In the following judgments, (which are referred to by the Trial Court), the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Bombay High Court has explained the scope of Section 27 of the Evidence Act in relation to alleged discovery./recovery. (i) In Mohmed Inayatulla v/s. The State of Maharashtra,1995 AIR SC 483, the Supreme Court observed that the statement made by accused during the police custody involving him in the crime is not admissible, incriminating statement made by accused to police officer is hit by Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. (ii) In another case viz Jackaran Singh V/s/ State of Punjab, (1995) CriLJ 3992 the Supreme Court has observed that if the disclosure statement made by accused under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act does not bear the signature or thumb impression of the accused, it renders such statement unreliable. (ii) In another case viz Jackaran Singh V/s/ State of Punjab, (1995) CriLJ 3992 the Supreme Court has observed that if the disclosure statement made by accused under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act does not bear the signature or thumb impression of the accused, it renders such statement unreliable. It means the police officer or the I.O. should obtain the signature or thumb impression of the accused on the disclosure statement made under Section 27 of the Evidence Act while in the police custody. (iii) The Bombay High Court in Ganpat Kisan Giri @ Nadiwala v/s. State of Maharashtra, (1995) CriLJ 792 observed that if the place of recovery is easily accessible to all and sundry then no reliance should be placed on the recovery made. (iv) In the case of Aher Raja Khima v/s. State of Saurashtra, (1956) AIR SC 217 the Supreme Court has observed that the discovery of incriminating articles allegedly to have been recovered from the accused is inadmissible in evidence if the police already knew where they were hidden. (iv) In the case Shankar Raju Banglorkar v/s State of Goa, (1992) CriLJ 3034 this Court held that if the disclosure staement is made by accused in police station while he was handcuffed, the disclosure held to be made under duress, pressure or threats given by police and hence not admissible in view of Article 20 of the Constitution of India. 50. Now coming to the discovery and/or recovery of golden ornaments and the wrist watch, which, according to the prosecution, were on the person of deceased Sayali at the time of alleged incident. The informant (PW-4), who is the husband of deceased Sayali, stated in his deposition that he presented a Mani golden Mangalsutra to Sayali and father of deceased Sayali presented her two golden earrings. He also stated that after her marriage they purchased a Ricko India wrist watch to her some times after September 1993. He further stated that on the day of incident Sayali had the above ornaments on her person. He further stated that the muhurt mani was prepared by threading the ordinary manis (black bids and the golden large bid in a golden thread. During the course of investigation, he identified the said articles to be of Sayali. He further stated that on the day of incident Sayali had the above ornaments on her person. He further stated that the muhurt mani was prepared by threading the ordinary manis (black bids and the golden large bid in a golden thread. During the course of investigation, he identified the said articles to be of Sayali. It is required to be noted that at one place PW-4 Sahadeo Sawant stated that the wrist watch is of Ricko India made, however in his statement recorded by police he stated the wrist watch on the person of Sayali was of Titan make. This is one of the contradiction so far as the deposition of PW4 is concerned. Secondly PW-4 Sahadeo did not state the name of goldsmith i.e. Pandurang Balkrishna Chodankar (PW-14) who has been examined by the prosecution to prove that the said mangalsutra has been prepared by the said goldsmith. It appears that the Investigating Officer, at the time of identification of the ornaments on the person of Sayali, did not put other mangalsutra along with the alleged mangalsutra of Sayali. From the evidence on record it appears that during the course of investigation he called husband of Sayali (PW No.4) to identify the ornaments. However he did not follow the proper procedure for identification of the said ornaments. It can be seen from the deposition of PW-14 Padurang Chodankar i.e. the goldsmit that he has issued a receipt mentioning the weight and price of Mangalsutra to Sahadeo (PW-4). However, it appears that, informant Sahadeo (PW-4) did not produce the said receipt before the Investigating Officer. The said goldsmith admitted in his cross examination that other goldsmits can also prepare the Mangalsutra like the one at muddemal article No.19. According to the informant, the two earrings were presented by the father of Sayali, however, neither the prosecution has examined the father of Sayali to prove that the earrings were given by him to Sayali nor did the informant produced any receipt to that effect. Except the bare words of Sahadeo (PW-4), there is nothing on record to show that the informant has really purchased the mangalsutra from the said goldsmith or the said earrings were presented by father of Sayali to her at the time of marriage. Hence it cannot be said that the identification of the golden ornaments by the informant (PW-4) is proper. Hence it cannot be said that the identification of the golden ornaments by the informant (PW-4) is proper. Therefore the prosecution has not led a reliable evidence in so far as identification of the said ornaments. In absence of receipts of purchase of ornaments from the said goldsmith (PW-14), it cannot be said that the said mangalsutra has been sold by said goldsmith (PW-14) to informant Sahadeo. 51. Now coming to the C.A reports (Exhibit 97). The C A opined that only one stone, a saree, petti coat and brassier had blood stains of "A" group, whereas the bood groups on the rest of the articles could not be determined as a result were inconclusive. It is not in dispute that the saree, petticoat and brassier were the clothes seized from the dead body of Sayali. Therefore it shows that the blood group of Sayali was "A". However, there is absolutely no material on record to show, as to what was the blood group found on the alleged clothes of accused Nos. 1 and 3 alleged produced by them and sent to C.A. The Chemical Analyser could not determine the blood groups found on those clothes of accused except the shirt wrapped in a paper, labelled as F-2 mentioned in CA report dated 14-11-1995 (Exhibit 95) and the letter of PSI dated 25-7-1995 (Exhibit 86). If Exhibit 86 and Exhibit 92 read together, it can be inferred that blood group of the blood detected on the shirt alleged produced by Accused No.3 Vishwas and marked as F-2 by police was found to be A group. Except this, there is absolutely nothing on record to show that the blood group of the deceased Sayali and the stains even on the clothes of accused were the same. The prosecution has examined Dr. Mahendra Dangar (PW-12) and Dr. Pramod Valavalkar (PW-13), who examined the blood group of accused Nos.1 to 3. PW-12 Dr. Dangare found that the blood group of accused No.3 Vishwas was B Rh +ve, and PW-13 Dr. Valavalkar found that the blood group of accused No.1 Manohar as O +ve, and the blood group of accused No.2 Santosh was B Rh +ve. 52. Pramod Valavalkar (PW-13), who examined the blood group of accused Nos.1 to 3. PW-12 Dr. Dangare found that the blood group of accused No.3 Vishwas was B Rh +ve, and PW-13 Dr. Valavalkar found that the blood group of accused No.1 Manohar as O +ve, and the blood group of accused No.2 Santosh was B Rh +ve. 52. In so far as test laid down for appreciating circumstantial evidence including theory of last seen together is concerned, a useful reference could be made to the judgment of Supreme Court in the matter of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v/s. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 the Apex Court in paragraphs 153 and 154 has observed as under :- "153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established: (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between 'may be proved' and 'must be or should be proved' as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra where the following observations were made. "Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions." (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of 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, and (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. 154. (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (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. 154. These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence." In paragraph 143 of the said Judgment, the Apex further observed that it is vital that any circumstance adverse to the accused must be put to him in his statement under Section 313, CrPC 1973; otherwise it must be completely excluded from consideration because the appellant did not have any chance to explain them. In paragraph 159 and 160 the Apex Court further observed thus :- "159 It will be seen that this Court while taking into account the absence of explanation or a false explanation did hold that it will amount to be an additional link to complete the chain but these observations must be read in the light of what this Court said earlier viz. before a false explanation or false plea taken by the accused can be used as an additional link to the chain of circumstantial evidence, the following essential conditions must be satisfied: (1) various links in the chain of evidence led by the prosecution have been satisfactorily proved. (2) the said circumstance point to the guilt of the accused with reasonable definiteness, and (3) the circumstance is in proximity to the time and situation. 160 If these conditions are fulfilled only then a court can use a false explanation or a false defence as an additional link to lend an assurance to the court and not otherwise." In paragraph 161 it is also observed by the Apex Court that there is a vital difference between an incomplete chain of circumstances and a circumstance which, after the chain is complete, is added to it merely to reinforce the conclusion of the Court. 53. In said Sharad Birdhichand Sarda's case (supra) the Apex Court has also considered the aspect as to when the benefit of doubt can be given. 53. In said Sharad Birdhichand Sarda's case (supra) the Apex Court has also considered the aspect as to when the benefit of doubt can be given. The Apex Court in paragraph 162 and 163 has observed as under :- "162 Moreover, in M.G. Agarwal's case (supra) this Court while reiterating the principles enunciated in Hanumant's case observed thus: If the circumstances proved in the case are consistent either with the innocence of the accused or with his guilt, then the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. "In Shankarlal's (supra) this Court reiterated the same view thus: "Legal principles are not magic incantations and their importance lies more in their application to a given set of facts than in their recital in the judgment". 163. We then pass on to another important point which seems to have been completely missed by the High Court. It is well settled that where on the evidence two possibilities are available or open, one which goes in favour of the prosecution and the other which benefits an accused, the accused is undoubtedly entitled to the benefit of doubt. In Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, this Court made the following observations. "Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted This principle has a special relevance in cases where in the guilt of the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence." In the concluding paragraph 218, the Apex Court observed as under :- "218 In view of the fact that this is a case of circumstantial evidence and further in view of the fact that two views are possible on the evidence on record, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other his innocence, the accused is entitled to have the benefit of one which is favourable to him. In that view of the matter I agree with my learned brothers that the guilt of the accused has not been proved beyond all reasonable doubt." 54. In that view of the matter I agree with my learned brothers that the guilt of the accused has not been proved beyond all reasonable doubt." 54. In the light of aforementioned golden principles laid down by the Supreme Court, if the evidence of prosecution witnesses discussed in forgoing paragraphs is considered in its entirety, it will have to be held that the prosecution utterly failed to establish its case, inasmuch as neither the prosecution was able to prove each circumstances firmly and independently nor chain of circumstances which would lead to only hypothesis of guilt of accused and none else. 55. The Trial Court has properly recorded the finding that the alleged confessional statement of accused No.3 is not a confessional statement at all, and it cannot be used against the co-accused. The Trial Court has rightly held that there is no other concrete evidence against the accused Nos. 1 and 2. After considering the material on record, the evidence brought on record by the prosecution and other documents such as PM Notes, CA report, the Trial Court has rightly come to a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to connect the link between the circumstantial evidence and complete the chain to come to a definite and only conclusion that, it were the accused and accused only who assaulted Sayali, committed theft of her ornaments and valuables and then killed her in furtherance of their common intention. The Trial Court has rightly held accused Nos. 1 to 4 entitled for benefit of doubts and ultimately for acquittal, and accordingly by the impugned judgment dated 24/01/1997 acquitted the accused Nos.1 and 4 of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 392 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Trial Court has taken a plausible view on the basis of the evidence available on record. There is no perversity in the findings recorded by the Trial Court. 56. In that view of the matter, there is no merit in this Appeal against acquittal, and hence the same deserves no consideration. Accordingly Criminal Appeal stands dismissed. Bail Bonds of the Respondents - Accused, if any, stand cancelled.