JUDGMENT: Shree Chandrashekhar, J. A First Information Report was lodged against unknown on the basis of fardbeyan of Raju Yadav, brother of Sarita Kumari. In course of investigation complicity of Vicky Sao and Guddu Pandey in the crime transpired and they were arrested on 10.01.2011. In their confessional statements they admitted their crime and at their disclosure a sandal (chappal) belonging to Guddu Pandey and a knife concealed in the house of Vicky Sao were recovered. 2. In Sessions Trial No. 386 of 2011, the appellants have faced the trial on the charge under section 302/34 IPC and section 201/34 IPC. They have been convicted and sentenced to R.I. for life and a fine of Rs. 20,000/- each under section 302/34 IPC and R.I. for 7 years and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each under section 201/34 IPC. 3. The case of the prosecution is that the appellants were in love with Sarita Kumari and in the intervening night of 04/05.01.2011 they committed murder of Sarita Kumari and concealed her dead body in the bushes near the fields of Badhan Saw. During the trial the prosecution has examined eight witnesses out of whom PW-1, PW-2 and PVV-5 are brothers and PW-6 is mother of Sarita Kumari. PW-3 and PVV-4. the co-villagers, have turned hostile. 4. The case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. In Charan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1967 SC 520 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “It is well-established that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to he drawn should, in the first instance, he fully established, and the circumstances so established should he consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused person; that is. the circumstances should he of such a nature as to reasonably exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. To put it in other words, the chain of evidence must be so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused person.” 5. Sarita Kumari has died a homicidal death that has been established by the prosecution and the defense has not thrown any challenge to this aspect of the matter. 6. PW-7, Dr. Sarita Kumari has died a homicidal death that has been established by the prosecution and the defense has not thrown any challenge to this aspect of the matter. 6. PW-7, Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh who has conducted the autopsy has found the following injuries on the person of Sarita Kumari: I. Lacerated wound over right side of face, dimension 4”x 3” muscle deep. II. Incised wound over right side efface over mandibular region 2”x ½”. skin deep. III. Incised wound over interior part of neck three in numbers-dimension 1½”x ¼”. skin deep. IV. Incised wound over right parietal area of scalp dimension 2” x ½”, muscle deep. V. Incised wound over left side of lower part of neck size ½” x ½”, thorax deep. VI. Incised wound over left palm size is ½”x ¼”, skin deep. 7. In the opinion of the doctor, the injury no.(I) was caused by hard and blunt object and other four injuries were caused by sharp-cutting weapon. These injuries largely corroborate the prosecution story that Sarita Kumari was assaulted with knife and her face was smashed with a stone. 8. However, the issue before the trial Court was who has committed murder of Sarita Kumari. 9. PW-1. PW-2, PW-5 and PW-6 are intimately related to the deceased and therefore their evidence is required to be evaluated with care and caution. In Masalti v. State of U.P., AIR 1965 SC 202 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “14. … There is no doubt that when a criminal court has to appreciate evidence given by witnesses who are partisan or interested, it has to be very careful in weighing such evidence Whether or not there are discrepancies in the evidence : whether or not evidence strikes the Court as genuine; whether or not the story disclosed by the evidence is probable, are all matters which must be taken into account….” 10. There is no eye-witness to the occurrence and the confessional statements of the appellants were not admissible in evidence. 11. The confessional statement of Guddu Pandey was recorded by PW-8 at 12:25 PM on 10.01.2011 at Kumhar Toli, J.P.M. Marg in presence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-5. There is no eye-witness to the occurrence and the confessional statements of the appellants were not admissible in evidence. 11. The confessional statement of Guddu Pandey was recorded by PW-8 at 12:25 PM on 10.01.2011 at Kumhar Toli, J.P.M. Marg in presence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-5. On the disclosure of Guddu Pandey one blood-stained big stone and one old plastic sandal (chappal) stained with mud were recovered at 13:00 PM on 10.01.2011 from the fields of Badhan Saw at Kumhar Toli, J.P.M. Marg in presence of PW-1 and PW-5. 12. The investigating officer has admitted in the Court that on suspicion he arrested the appellants and during interrogation they admitted their crime. However, PW-5 has stated that the investigating officer was seen talking to the appellants in a field and their confessional statements were not recorded in his presence. On disclosure of Guddu Pandey a sandal (chappal) was recovered which was identified by PW-1, PW-5 and PW-6 but in their cross-examination PW-5 and PW-6 have admitted that the kinds of sandal (chappal) which was recovered by the police are available in the market. No was conducted in respect of the sandal (chappal) allegedly belonging to Guddu Pandey and the claim of PW-5 that he was able to identify the sandal (chappal) as belonging to Guddu Pandey because he used to visit his house would not establish that the sandal belonged to Guddu Pandey. The statement of PW-5 is in the realm of conjectures, not supported by identification of the sandal (chappal) in TIP. PW-2 in para-21 of the cross-examination has stated that identification parade of sandal was conducted but with respect to only one sandal and a Magistrate was not present there. Interestingly, the investigating officer has stated in para-15 of the cross-examination that no TIP of sandal was conducted. 13. The confessional statement of Vickv Sao was recorded by PW-8 at 13:30 PM on 10.01.2011 at Kumhar Toli but none of the witnesses has testified that it was recorded in his presence. From the house of Vicky Sao at Kumhar Toli one 8 inches long knife with plastic bet was recovered at 13:45 PM on 10.01.2011 on the disclosure of Vicky Sao. From the house of Vicky Sao at Kumhar Toli one 8 inches long knife with plastic bet was recovered at 13:45 PM on 10.01.2011 on the disclosure of Vicky Sao. PW-1 has stated that a knife was recovered from the field behind the house of Vicky Sao, whereas as per seizure-memo (exhibit-1/5) the knife was recovered from beneath the bed (Bhichawn ke niche se) in the house of Vicky Sao and PW-5 has stated that no knife was recovered in his presence. 14. Section 27 of the Evidence Act is an exception to the restrictions under section 25 and section 26 of the Evidence Act. Section 27 carves out a limited exception to the extent that certain statements made by an accused in police custody can be proved by the prosecution provided the disclosure by the accused leads to discovery of a fact in consequence of information received from an accused while in custody of a police officer. In Pulukuri Kotayya v. King-Emperor AIR 1947 PC 67 the Judicial Committee of Privy Council has observed that the “fact discovered” embraces the place from which the object is recovered and knowledge of the accused as to this and the information given by him must distinctly relate to this fact. It has further been held that the information as to past user, or the past history of the object produced does not relate to this discovery in the setting in which it is discovered. 15. The recoveries made on disclosure of the appellants were not proved and, therefore, no part of the confessional statement of the appellants can be said to have led to discovery of a new fact. 16. PW-1 who is brother of Sarita Kumari has deposed in the Court that in the night when his mother did not find his sister in the house she started searching for her and her dead body was found in the fields of Badhan Saw. PW-2 has stated that he was friendly with Guddu Pandey and Vicky Sao and they used to visit his house and would talk to his sister. He has stated that they were like brother and sister, but his sister inspite of his asking her not to meet them would go to market for meeting them. PW-5, another brother of Sarita Kumari has stated thai Vicky Sao was not visiting frequently and he had good relations with him. He has stated that they were like brother and sister, but his sister inspite of his asking her not to meet them would go to market for meeting them. PW-5, another brother of Sarita Kumari has stated thai Vicky Sao was not visiting frequently and he had good relations with him. He has also stated that he had no quarrel with Vicky Saw. PW-6 has stated that before the incident she did not know who was Vicky Sao and also admitted that Guddu Pandey has no quarrel with her family. She has further stated that Guddu Pandey belongs to other caste and in her family inter-caste marriage is not solemnized. PW-1 and PW-6 have stated that they started search for Sarita Kumari in the night, however, PW-5 has stated that when Sarita Kumari was not found in the house in the night of 04.01.2011 he did not go for her search. They have stated that a large crowd had already gathered there by the time they found the dead body of Sarita Kumari, but it has remained a mystery who first found her dead body. The investigating officer has admitted in the Court that in course of investigation he has recorded statements of Chatru Yadav and Riniya Devi however these witnesses were not produced during the trial. The village is densely populated and it has come on record that around the house of the informant and Badhan Saw there are several houses but no one has seen the occurrence. 17. From the aforesaid materials which were laid during the trial one remarkable feature of this case which is quite apparent is that on every issue the prosecution evidence is inconsistent. The prosecution story that the appellants had fallen in love with Sarita Kumari and going by the disclosure of the appellants the incident has happened because Sarita Kumari confessed before them in the night of 04.01.2011 that she loves Guddu Pandey more than Vicky Sao whereupon he became enraged and assaulted her with a knife is not spoken by any witness. Of course, this part of disclosure by the appellants in their confessional statements is not admissible in evidence, but then, the prosecution has built its case solely on the confessions of the appellants. The dead body of Sarita Kumari was found half naked with several injuries and her face smashed. Of course, this part of disclosure by the appellants in their confessional statements is not admissible in evidence, but then, the prosecution has built its case solely on the confessions of the appellants. The dead body of Sarita Kumari was found half naked with several injuries and her face smashed. Even assuming that Sarita Kumari was in love with the appellants the normal human conduct and standards would dictate that she would not go in the dead of the night in a barren field to meet two lovers at the same time and confess before them that she loves one more than the other. 18. To conclude, the prosecution has failed to establish a chain of circumstances which would unerringly say that murder of Sarita Kumari was committed by the appellants and appellants alone and none else. Therefore, we hold that the prosecution has failed to establish the charge framed against the appellants in Sessions Trial No. 386 of 2011. 19. The judgment of conviction of the appellant, namely, Vicky Sao @ Bicky Kumar Saw and the appellant, namely, Guddu Pandey under section 302/34 IPC and section 201/34 IPC and the order of sentence of R.I. for life and a fine of Rs. 20,000/- each under section 302/34 IPC and R.I. for 7 years and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each under section 201/34 IPC, both dated 23.11.2017, passed by the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge XII, Hazaribag in Sessions Trial No. 386 of 2011, are set-aside. 20. The appellants above-named are acquitted of the charges under section 302/34 IPC and section 201/34 IPC framed against them in Sessions Trial No. 386 of 2011. 21. Mrs. Priya Shrestha, the learned Spl. PP states that both the appellants are in custody. 22. Accordingly, the appellant, namely, Vicky Sao @ Bicky Kumar Saw [in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 209 of 2018] and the appellant, namely, Guddu Pandey [in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 213 of 2018] who are in custody shall be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection to any other case. 23. In the result, Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 209 of 2018 and Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 213 of 2018 are allowed. 24. Let a copy of the judgment be transmitted to the Court concerned and the concerned jail superintendent through ‘Fax’. 25. Let the lower-court records be sent to the Court concerned forthwith.