JUDGMENT : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. In S.T. Case No. 143 of 2011, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced to RI for life and a fine of Rs.10,000/- each under section 302/34, IPC for committing murder of Zakarious Kullu and RI for seven years and a fine of Rs.5000/- each under section 201, IPC for causing disappearance of his dead body. 2. Bolba PS Case No. 05 of 2011 was registered on 19.04.2011 against Paulus Kullu and Pradeep Kullu far committing offences under section 302/201/34, IPC. The fardbeyan of Fulkuwari Kullu was recorded on 19.04.2011 at 07:00 a.m. at village Talmanga Gambhartoli by the officer-in-charge of Bolba police station. After the investigating a charge-sheet was submitted against both of them and they have faced the trial on the charges under Sections 302/34 IPC and 201/34, IPC. During the trial the prosecution has examined nine witnesses - all of them are co-villagers, out of whom Fulkuwari Kullu, the informant, is wife of Zakarious Kullu. 3. PW-9, Dr. Rajendra Narayan Yadav who has conducted the post-mortem examination has found the following injuries on Zakarious Kullu : (i) Left ear, ear pinna was cut in the middle; (ii) fracture of left radius and ulna; (iii) cut injury of skin 1" x 1/4" beside right eye; (iv) skin cut on lips and nose; (v) fracture of right temporal bone with brain matter coming out of it. 4. The injuries were ante-mortem in nature; time elapsed since death 38-46 hours and; death was caused due to head injury. PW-9 has observed that decomposition of the dead body with few maggots had started and rigor mortis was absent in all limbs. These observations of PW-9 indicate that Zakarious Kullu was done to death sometime in the night of 17.04.2011. With the help of the evidence of PW-9 and other materials the prosecution has proved homicidal death of Zakarious Kullu. 5. During the trial the prosecution has projected PW-1, PW-2, PW-4 and PW-7 as eye-witnesses. PW-1, the wife of Zakarious Kullu has deposed in the Court that in the night about 20:00-21:00 hours she along with her husband left home after dinner. They were going to the house of their daughter who was also married in the same village. The appellants apprehended them and started assaulting her husband. PW-1, the wife of Zakarious Kullu has deposed in the Court that in the night about 20:00-21:00 hours she along with her husband left home after dinner. They were going to the house of their daughter who was also married in the same village. The appellants apprehended them and started assaulting her husband. She says that when she was assaulted by the appellants she ran away and thereafter what has happened to her husband she cannot say. After one day dead body of her husband was recovered from well of Munna Lohra. The testimony of PW-1 has been challenged on the ground of her intimate relationship with Zakarious Kullu. In scrutinizing evidence of a related and interested witness the Court cannot start with a suspicion. In "Sarwan Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab" reported in (1976) 4 SCC 369 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the evidence of an interested witness does not suffer from any infirmity as such but the Courts require as a rule of prudence, not as a rule of law, that the evidence of such witness should be scrutinized with a little care and once the Court is satisfied that the evidence of interested witness has a ring of truth such evidence can be relied upon even without corroboration. On a glance at the statement of PW-1 as recorded in her fardbeyan and her evidence in the Court would disclose serious discrepancies. In a criminal trial a previous statement of a witness can be used to corroborate or to contradict the witness. In her fardbeyan PW-1 has stated that in the night of 17.04.2011 when she was cooking food Pradeep Kullu came to her house and after some time his elder brother Paulus Kullu also joined him. After dinner she along with her husband started for the house of her daughter at about 09:00 p.m. and at that time her husband was carrying a tangi. She has stated that when they moved about 10 yards west to their house the appellants holding lathi came there and started assaulting her husband. She has further stated that Paulus Kullu snatched tangi from her husband and assaulted him and when he attempted to assault her she ran away to her daughter. She has stated that when they moved about 10 yards west to their house the appellants holding lathi came there and started assaulting her husband. She has further stated that Paulus Kullu snatched tangi from her husband and assaulted him and when he attempted to assault her she ran away to her daughter. She informed them about the incident and after sometime she along with her daughter, son-in-law and other villagers including one Bimla Devi came to the place where her husband was assaulted by the appellants but they did not find him there. However, from what PW-1 has deposed in the Court we find that except saying that she and her husband were assaulted by the appellants all other material facts which she has spoken in her fardbeyan are left out. Her evidence in the Court is highly unsatisfactory and the quality of her evidence is so poor to inspire confidence of the Court. Her statements in the cross-examination has further eroded credibility and truthfulness of her testimony. She has stated that the appellants were regularly threatening her however she did not make a complaint to anyone in this regard. Her statement regarding threats by the appellants has come for the first time in her cross-examination and she is completely silent on this aspect in her examination-in-chief. In the fardbeyan she has stated that after Paulus Kullu attempted to assault her she ran away to the house of her daughter, but in her cross-examination she says that after the appellant gave her lathi blows she ran towards basti (village). The Investigating Officer has deposed in the Court that PW-1 was examined by a doctor but he has further admitted that she did not suffer any injury in the occurrence. PW-1 has admitted that after her husband was assaulted by the appellants she did not raise hulla but called there two people from the village, however, she has failed to disclose their name. Her daughter, son-in-law, Sarita Devi and other two villagers whom she had allegedly called at the place of occurrence have not been produced during the trial to corroborate her story of the occurrence. 6. In view of the discrepancies in the testimony of PW-1, we would say that her evidence can be relied upon only if corroborated by other independent evidence and, therefore, we would now examine the evidence of other independent witnesses. 6. In view of the discrepancies in the testimony of PW-1, we would say that her evidence can be relied upon only if corroborated by other independent evidence and, therefore, we would now examine the evidence of other independent witnesses. PW-2 who ha claimed that she has seen the appellants assaulting Zakarious Kullu has stated in the Court that the occurrence has taken place at 10:00 p.m. in the night and at that time she was grazing cattle. Her claim that she was grazing cattle in the night at once raises a doubt about her truthfulness. She has given an entirely different story about the occurrence, in that she says that PW-1 though did not raise hulla, called her to pacify quarrel between the appellants and her husband. She intervened but when the appellants started assaulting PW-1 she ran away. She says that she does not know what has happened thereafter. PW-4 has stated that he has seen Paulus Kullu committing murder of Zakarious Kullu. In his cross-examination he has stated that his house is at a distance of about 1/2 KM from the house of Zakarious Kullu; it was a dark night at about 09:00 p.m. when the appellants assaulted him; he has poor vision and; he cannot see anything properly in the night. He has finally admitted in his cross-examination that he has not seen anybody assaulting Zakarious Kullu. PW-7 is also a co-villager who has deposed in the Court that on the day of the occurrence he was present in the village; both the appellants have committed murder of Zakarious Kullu, but he could not see the weapon with which they have assaulted Zakarious Kullu. In his cross-examination he has stated that his statement was not recorded by the police. 7. The first thing we intend to record about PW-2, PW-4 and PW-7 is that these witnesses have given contradictory narration of the manner of occurrence and their statements in the cross-examination would render them untrustworthy witnesses. This is also relevant to record that in her fardbeyan PW-1 has not spoken about presence of these witnesses near the place of occurrence. PW-3, PW-5 and PW-6 are the co-villager. PW-3 has stated that the dead body of Zakarious Kullu was round in the well of Munna Lohra. This is also relevant to record that in her fardbeyan PW-1 has not spoken about presence of these witnesses near the place of occurrence. PW-3, PW-5 and PW-6 are the co-villager. PW-3 has stated that the dead body of Zakarious Kullu was round in the well of Munna Lohra. PW-5 is a witness to seizure of tangi at the instance of Paulus Kullu, however, in his cross-examination he has stated that nothing was seized in his presence. PW-6 is the inquest witness. He has stated that Zakarious Kullu used to take liquor. From the prosecution evidence what we gather is that complicity of the appellants in the occurrence is doubtful. 8. The confessional statement of Paulus Kullu was recorded on 21.04.2011 at about 20:30 hours at Bolba police station. The story given by Paulus Kullu in his confessional statement about the occurrence is directly opposite to the prosecution story. Paulus Kullu has stated in his confessional statement that Zakarious Kullu tried to assault his brother and when he tried to save him he attempted to assault him also whereupon they snatched tangi from his uncle and assaulted him. He further says that the villagers became very angry with them and they were apprehended by the villagers who handed them over to the police, However, in this context this needs to be kept in mind that the occurrence has taken place on 17.04.2011 and the dead body was recovered on 18.04.2011 but the appellants were not apprehended by the villagers for three days. The contents of the confessional statement except that part of the disclosure which leads to discovery of a fact are not admissible in evidence, but in a case like this in which the prosecution is on shaky grounds recovery of the crime weapon on such a different story about the occurrence would be surrounded by suspicious circumstance. On a reading of the confessional statement of Paulus Kullu it would appear that no part of his disclosure is admissible in evidence and, therefore, it cannot be relied upon by the prosecution as an incriminating material against him. 9. In "State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Deoman Upadhyaya" reported in AIR 1960 SC 1125 , the accused had made a statement to hand over the gandasa which he had thrown into a tank. 9. In "State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Deoman Upadhyaya" reported in AIR 1960 SC 1125 , the accused had made a statement to hand over the gandasa which he had thrown into a tank. He was convicted by the trial Court for the offence of murder but the High Court excluded from consideration his confessional statement made in presence of the police officer on the ground that the story of the accused having borrowed a gandasa on the date of occurrence was unreliable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with the situation in the following words : "the High Court was of the view that the mere fetching of the gandasa from its hiding place did not establish that Deoman himself had put it in the tank, and an inference could legitimately be raised that somebody else had placed it in the tank, or that Deoman had seen someone placing that gandasa in the tank or that someone had told him about the gandasa lying in the tank. But for reasons already set out the information given by Deoman is provable in so far as it distinctly relates to the fact thereby discovered; and his statement that he had thrown the gandasa in the tank is information which distinctly relates to the discovery of the gandasa. Discovery from its place of hiding, at the instance of Deoman of the gandasa stained with human blood in the light of the admission by him that he had thrown it in the tank in which it was found therefore acquires significance, and destroys the theories suggested by the High Court." 10. On confessional statement of Paulus Kullu, alongwith the above observations in Deoman case we also need to keep in mind what has been stated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Sanjay @ Kaka v. The State (NCT of Delhi)" reported in (2001) 3 SCC 190 , that : "20......Section 27 renders information admissible on the ground that the discovery of a fact pursuant to a statement made by a person in custody is a guarantee of truth of the statement made by him and the legislature has chosen to make on that ground an exception to the rule prohibiting proof of such statement." 11. The Investigating Officer has stated that he received an information on 18.04.2011 about murder in village Talmanga Gambhartoli and he made a sanha entry. The Investigating Officer has stated that he received an information on 18.04.2011 about murder in village Talmanga Gambhartoli and he made a sanha entry. He has admitted in the Court that the said sanha is not reproduced in the case diary. He has gone to village Talmanga Gambhartoli in the evening of 18.04.2011 but fardbeyan of Fulkuwari Kullu was recorded the next day. He has given a spacious plea that he did not inspect the place of occurrence and record the statement of Fulkuwari Kullu because it was dark at night. He has not found any blood stain at the place where Zakarious Kullu was assaulted or his dead body was recovered. He has recorded the statement of Paulus Kullu and according to him at his instance tangi was recovered from his house. However, the seizure witness has not supported the prosecution and tangi seized by him was not produced in the Court. He has admitted in the Court that the tangi of Zakarious Kullu was not sent for FSL examination. On such evidence it must be held that seizure of tangi at the instance of the appellant is not proved and that the seized tangi was used in the crime. 12. In the final analysis we find that the prosecution story as disclosed by the witnesses is not trustworthy. The prosecution evidence contains more chaff than grain and the so called eye-witnesses are not reliable and trustworthy witnesses. Therefore, we hold that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges framed against the appellants in Sessions Trial No. 143 of 2011 and, accordingly, their conviction under section 302/34, IPC and section 201/34, IPC is set-aside. 13. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction of the appellants, namely, Paulus Kullu and Pradeep Kullu under section 302/34, IPC and section 201 IPC dated 27.07.2013 and the order of sentence of RI for life and fine of Rs.10,000/- each for the offence under section 302/34, IPC and RI for seven years and fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offence under section 201, IPC dated 31.07.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Simdega in Sessions Trial No. 143 of 2011 are set-aside. 14. Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, the learned APP states that the appellants, namely, Paulus Kullu and Pradeep Kullu are in custody. 15. 14. Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, the learned APP states that the appellants, namely, Paulus Kullu and Pradeep Kullu are in custody. 15. Accordingly, the appellants, named above, who are in custody, shall be set free forthwith, if not wanted in connection to any other criminal case. 16. In the result, Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 639 of 2013 is allowed. 17. Let lower Court records be transmitted to the Court concerned, forthwith. 18. Let a copy of the judgment be transmitted to the Court concerned through 'FAX'. Appeal allowed.