JUDGMENT : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. The sole appellant has faced the charge under sections 302 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code in Sessions Trial Case No.84 of 2009. He has been convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I for life and fine of Rs.20,000/- under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, Fast Track Court-VI, Ranchi has held that the charge under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code is not proved. 3. On the basis of the fard-beyan of Girdhari Sahu which was recorded on 28.06.2008 at about 8:15 a.m, Burmu P.S Case No.30 of 2008 has been registered against unknown. After the investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant and he has faced the trial on the charge of committing rape and murder of the victim girl. During the trial the prosecution has examined 17 witnesses and the defence has also examined 2 witnesses. 4. The informant of this case is father of the victim girl. In his fard-beyan the informant has stated that last evening at about 7:30 p.m his daughter after serving food to him had gone outside to ease herself but thereafter she did not come back. In the night he along with his relatives and villagers started search for his daughter but she could not be traced out. Next day morning at about 6:00 a.m he received an information that the dead body of his daughter is lying at Bansuri Tungri. He has found hands and mouth of his daughter tied with her clothes. She was half naked and there was injury on her neck. The informant has expressed his apprehension that after committing rape upon his daughter she has been killed. During the trial, he has been examined as P.W 15. In the court he has deposed about his daughter leaving house at about 7:30 in the night of 27.06.2008 and thereafter she did not come back home. He started search for his daughter with his neighbours but they had to come back because it was raining and next day morning he came to know that dead body of his daughter is lying at Bansuri Tungri. In his cross-examination he has stated that he had informed the police about the appellant visiting his house. 5. He started search for his daughter with his neighbours but they had to come back because it was raining and next day morning he came to know that dead body of his daughter is lying at Bansuri Tungri. In his cross-examination he has stated that he had informed the police about the appellant visiting his house. 5. To prove the charge against the appellant the prosecution has relied on the following circumstances: (i) the appellant and the deceased are co-villagers and the appellant was frequently visiting the deceased in her house, (ii) the appellant had free access to visit the deceased in her house, (iii) the appellant was forcing the minor sisters and brothers of the deceased to leave the room in which he used to teach the deceased, (iv) intimate relationship between the appellant and the deceased, (v) the appellant was seen talking to the deceased at about 5:00 p.m in the cabbage field, (vi) the deceased was pregnant at the time of the occurrence, (vii) the appellant had visited the nurse for aborting pregnancy of the deceased but he was advised to go to Ranchi, (viii) the deceased left home at about 7:30 p.m and next day morning her dead body has been found, (ix) the blood seized from the place of occurrence was of human origin, and (x) the knife which was the crime weapon was recovered at the instance of the appellant. 6. In a case which is based on circumstantial evidence the chain of circumstances must be so complete that only inference which can be drawn from the proved circumstances is that it was the accused and no body else who was involved in the crime. First, the prosecution is required to prove the incriminating circumstances and then prove that the proved circumstances are so complete that these point out an accusing finger only towards the accused excluding every reasonable hypothesis of innocence of the accused. In “Gambhir Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1982) 2 SCC 351 , the Supreme Court has explained the law on circumstantial evidence, thus; “9. In “Gambhir Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1982) 2 SCC 351 , the Supreme Court has explained the law on circumstantial evidence, thus; “9. ..................When a case rests upon the circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy three tests: (1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established (2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; (3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else. The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused. The circumstantial evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence...................” 7. To prove that the victim lady was lastly seen in the company of the appellant the prosecution has produced P.W 8-Rohit Kumar Sahu and P.W 16-Chinta Devi. P.W 8 is brother of the victim girl. In the court he has deposed that on 27.06.2008 at about 5:30 to 6:00 p.m when he and his other family members were picking cabbage the appellant came there and asked his sister to sneak from the house on the pretext of easing herself. The mother of the victim girl has been examined as P.W 16. She has also deposed in the court that at about 5:00 p.m. when she was picking cabbage in the field the appellant came there and asked her daughter to come outside her house. He came again and called her daughter and took her away towards the school at Tungri. 8. In the cross-examination P.W 8 has admitted that he did not overhear the conversation between the appellant and his sister and he has not seen any misbehaviour of the appellant. In paragraph no.10 of his cross-examination he has stated that after deliberation the case has been lodged. P.W 16 has also stated in her cross-examination that on her advice her husband has lodged the case. In paragraph no.7 of her cross-examination she has stated that at about 7:00 p.m. the appellant came and forcibly took away her daughter. In paragraph no.10 of his cross-examination he has stated that after deliberation the case has been lodged. P.W 16 has also stated in her cross-examination that on her advice her husband has lodged the case. In paragraph no.7 of her cross-examination she has stated that at about 7:00 p.m. the appellant came and forcibly took away her daughter. She has also stated that she raised hullah whereupon several villagers came there and she informed them about the appellant taking away her daughter forcibly. The defence has elicited this statement from P.W 16 presumably to show that she has not seen the appellant taking away her daughter in the evening of 27.06.2008 in the field. It is so because if the statement of P.W 16 is accepted as true, the informant has failed to offer an explanation why the First Information Report was lodged against unknown and, that too, after dead body of his daughter was found at Bansuri Tungri. Secondly, no one from the villager has come forward to support P.W 16 and if at all P.W 16 is true the prosecution has failed to explain why a First Information Report was lodged against unknown. The evidence of P.W 8 and P.W 16, whereunder they have admitted that after deliberation this case has been lodged, has created serious doubt on complicity of the appellant in the crime. In “Kailash Gour and Others Vs. State of Assam” reported in (2012) 2 SCC 34 , a case in which the First Information Report was drawn up after people from locality assembled and deliberated upon the matter, the Supreme Court has observed that it is doubtful if the First Information Report prepared after wide consultation and deliberations would carry a spontaneity to be credible in a criminal trial. 9. Dr. 9. Dr. C.S. Prasad-P.W 3, who has conducted the post-mortem examination on 28.06.2008, has found the following injuries on the victim girl: Abrasions: (i) 1 cm x ¼ cm, ¼ cm x ¼ cm, ½ cm x ¼ cm and 1 cm x ¼ cm on right side of chin, (ii) 2 cm x ½ cm, 1 cm x ½ cm, 1 cm x ½ cm on left lateral neck lower part and adjoining chest, (iii) 3 cm x 1 cm on left elbow back (iv) 3 cm x ½ cm on right knee medial side Incised wounds: (i) 12 cm x 3 cm, bone deep on upper part front of neck, cutting the soft tissue, blood vessels, trachea and fifth cervical. Vertebra partially. On examination of wounds there were three tissue tags projecting indicating minimum three blows, (ii) Linear cut: (a) 11 cm long and 9 cm long on front of lower part of the neck (b) 7 cm long on upper part front of neck. There was no evidence of mechanical injury over perineum and genital. There were three old healed tears of hymen. 10. In the opinion of the doctor, the abrasions found on the victim girl were caused by hard and blunt substance and the incised wound by a sharp-cutting weapon like knife (Chura). The learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, Fast Track Court-VI, Ranchi has acquitted the appellant of the charge under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code because the doctor has not found any sign of rape upon the victim girl. 11. The prosecution has laid in evidence confessional statement of the appellant recorded on 01.07.2008 at 8:15 a.m. In his confessional statement the appellant has stated that when the victim girl became pregnant he consulted Dr. Mihir Rai for aborting the pregnancy, however, he has refused saying that he cannot do this crime. About 8-10 days before the occurrence when the girl had started to put pressure on him for marriage he again took her to a Bengali doctor however he also opined that now it is not possible and therefore he decided to do away with the girl. He has further stated that after tying hands and mouth of the victim with her clothes he has slit her neck with a knife, which he has thrown in the well of Raj Govind Mahli. 12. He has further stated that after tying hands and mouth of the victim with her clothes he has slit her neck with a knife, which he has thrown in the well of Raj Govind Mahli. 12. In “Pulukuri Kottaya V. Emperor” reported in AIR 1947 PC 67 , the Privy Council has observed that section 27 of the Evidence Act incorporates an exception to the restrictions under section 25 and section 26 and enables certain statements made by an accused in police custody to be proved. It has been held that the condition necessary to bring section 27 of the Evidence Act into operation is that discovery of a fact in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence in the custody of a police officer must be deposed to, and thereupon so much of the information leading to discovery of fact may be proved. 13. The statement of an accused that he has committed murder and he can recover the crime article are past events. This part of the confessional statement of an accused is not admissible in evidence under section 27 of the Evidence Act. A new fact if is discovered pursuant to the confessional statement of an accused and leads to recovery of the weapon which can be connected with the crime is admissible in evidence under section 27 of the Evidence Act. That is so because recovery of the incriminating material lends credence to his disclosure made in his confessional statement. 14. The confessional statement of the appellant which was recorded by the police on 01.07.2008 does not reveal a new fact. His statement relates to the past events which were already known to the police and, therefore, not admissible under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The knife has been recovered from the well of Raj Govind Mahli but he has not been produced during the trial. P.W 1 and P.W 4 are the seizure witnesses who have put their signature on the seizure-memo of the knife. P.W 1 has stated that he has put his signature on a blank paper and P.W 4 has admitted in the cross-examination that he has not read what was written on the seizure-memo. P.W 4 has also stated that his statement was not recorded by the police. 15. P.W 1 has stated that he has put his signature on a blank paper and P.W 4 has admitted in the cross-examination that he has not read what was written on the seizure-memo. P.W 4 has also stated that his statement was not recorded by the police. 15. On such evidence, recovery of knife from the well of Raj Govind Mahli has not been proved by the prosecution and to make it worse the knife has not been sent for F.S.L examination. 16. The only evidence which the prosecution has strongly relied upon against the appellant is the last-seen-together. 17. The law on last-seen-together is by now well-settled. When a person is found lastly in the company of the accused and soon thereafter his dead body is recovered, a strong suspicion would arise on complicity of the accused in the crime and if the last-seen-together story is sufficiently corroborated by other independent evidence, the accused can be held guilty for murder, but then, only on the basis of the last-seen-together evidence an accused cannot be convicted and, that too, for a serious offence like murder. The last-seen-together evidence may provide an additional link in the chain of circumstances but by itself it would not complete the chain of circumstances. In “Navaneethakrishnan Vs. State By Inspector of Police” reported in (2018) 16 SCC 161 , the Supreme Court has held as under: “22. …....... It is a settled legal position that the law presumes that it is the person, who was last seen with the deceased, would have killed the deceased and the burden to rebut the same lies on the accused to prove that they had departed. Undoubtedly, the last seen theory is an important event in the chain of circumstances that would completely establish and/or could point to the guilt of the accused with some certainty. However, this evidence alone cannot discharge the burden of establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and requires corroboration.” 18. The last-seen-together evidence led through P.W 8 and P.W 16 is tainted with such exaggeration that it would amount to contradiction and, therefore, must be excluded from consideration. 19. In the present case what has been proved by the prosecution is that the appellant was visiting the house of the victim girl and he used to teach her in a closed room. 19. In the present case what has been proved by the prosecution is that the appellant was visiting the house of the victim girl and he used to teach her in a closed room. But beyond that nothing has been proved by the prosecution against the appellant. A story of illicit relationship between the appellant and victim girl has been floated by the prosecution on the basis of the post-mortem examination report which reveals that at the time of death the victim girl was pregnant, but no evidence has been led by the prosecution to prove this circumstance. P.W 5 is the nurse and P.W 6 is the compounder to whom the appellant has allegedly contacted for abortion but they have turned hostile. P.W 7, who is cousin of the victim girl, and P.W 9, who is the next door neighbour, have stated that quiet often they used to see the appellant with the victim girl in her house, but such evidence by itself would not prove illicit relationship between them. P.W 10 and P.W 11 are the inquest witnesses and P.W 12 and P.W 13 are the seizure witnesses. They have not spoken anything significant about the occurrence. 20. On the basis of the aforesaid evidence, it cannot be held that the prosecution has proved the incriminating circumstances against the appellant. 21. In the final analysis, we find that the prosecution has failed to prove that the chain of circumstances is complete and, therefore, it must be held that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 22. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence of R.I for life and fine of Rs.20,000/-under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, both dated 12.01.2010, passed against the appellant in Sessions Trial Case No.84 of 2009 are set-aside. 23. The appellant, namely, Sanoj Kumar Sahu is acquitted of the criminal charges framed against him in Sessions Trial Case No.84 of 2009. 24. The appellant, above-named, who is in custody, shall be released forthwith if not required in connection to any other criminal case. 25. In the result, Criminal Appeal (D.B) No.154 of 2010 is allowed. 26. Let lower-court records be sent to the court concerned forthwith.