JUDGMENT : Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J. 1. Five persons, namely, Dulal Ali, Mobin S/o Babu, Mobin S/o Yamin, Sagir Ahmad and Virendra Pal were charge-sheeted by the Investigating Officer of Kashipur Police Station, District Udham Singh Nagar for the alleged commission of offence under Sections 394, 302 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “the Penal Code”1860, for brevity) in Case Crime/FIR No. 324 of 2008. Out of the above five persons Mobin S/o Yamin was found to be a juvenile. His case was taken up by the Juvenile Justice Board, Udham Singh Nagar. Rest of the four accused persons faced the trial. Mobin S/o Babu was acquitted of all charges by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kashipur. Similarly, Virendra Pal was acquitted of the charges under Sections 394 and 302 of the Penal Code by the learned Sessions Judge, Kashipur, but he was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 411 of the Penal Code. The rest two accused persons, i.e., Sagir Ahamad and Dulal Ali were convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for the offence under Sections 394, 302 and 411 and each of them were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year for the offence under Section 302 of the Penal Code; they have also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment each for 10 years under section 394 of the Penal Code and to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default, to undergo six months additional rigorous imprisonment. They have also been sentenced to undergo three years’ rigorous imprisonment each with fine and default stipulation for the offence under Section 411 of the Penal Code, by the learned Trial Court. The appellants have been so convicted under the Sessions Trial No. 252 of 2008 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kashipur vide judgment dated 11.10.2014 and have been sentenced, as above. 2. As per the prosecution case, on 23.06.2008, at 6:15 A.M., Mr. K. C. Singh Baba, a Member of Parliament representing Nainital constituency filed a written report in the Kashipur Police Station to the effect that his Secretary Shri Ravi Shankar, has been missing since 22.06.2008 at about 9:00 PM. The said Ravi Shankar was carrying a mobile no. 9412088333, but the said mobile was found to be switched off. K. C. Singh Baba, a Member of Parliament representing Nainital constituency filed a written report in the Kashipur Police Station to the effect that his Secretary Shri Ravi Shankar, has been missing since 22.06.2008 at about 9:00 PM. The said Ravi Shankar was carrying a mobile no. 9412088333, but the said mobile was found to be switched off. He was also having a Heero Honda Motor Cycle (C. D. Dawn numbered as U.A.06F-5985). Ravi Shanker had gone to meet Mr. Shri Joga Singh Chheena and was returning after meeting him and, thereafter, he has gone missing. 3. On the basis of the said report, on 23.06.2008, at about 6:15 AM, a criminal case was initiated for the offence under Section 365 of the Penal Code. On that night itself, the dead body of the deceased was found. As the motorcycle as well as the other belongings of the deceased were still missing and the deceased was found to have sustained injuries with sharp edged weapon, the case was turned into Sections 394 and 302 of the Pena Code. On 10.07.2008, Police received information that the accused persons were standing at Dhelapur. The Police apprehended the accused persons. On their indication (( fu'kkunsgh )), the weapons of the offence, the papers of the motorcycle as well as one diary belonging to the deceased was recovered. At the instance of Sagir Ahmad, the motorcycle was recovered and seized from the home of one of the accused Virendra Pal. The other documentations along with the certain papers like, letterhead of the informant were discovered from the house of the said Virendra Pal. Thus, a charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 394, 302 and 411 of the Penal Code and the accused persons faced the trial. 4. Accused Dulal Ali and Sagir Ahamd took the plea that they have falsely been implicated and the witnesses are deposing falsehood against them. 5. In order to prove the case, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses. PW1 K. C. Singh Baba is the complainant. PW2 Joga Singh is the person, whom the deceased went to meet on that day. PW8 Doctor Manoj Kushwaha has conducted postmortem of the dead body of the deceased and also prepared the postmortem report. PW5 Raj Kishore Farshwan is the Police Officer, who has conducted most of the investigation. The rest of the witnesses are formal or official witnesses. PW2 Joga Singh is the person, whom the deceased went to meet on that day. PW8 Doctor Manoj Kushwaha has conducted postmortem of the dead body of the deceased and also prepared the postmortem report. PW5 Raj Kishore Farshwan is the Police Officer, who has conducted most of the investigation. The rest of the witnesses are formal or official witnesses. PW3 Pramod and PW4 Chandra Prakash are the punch witnesses and have appended their signatures on seizure list. PW6 Amar Chandra Sharma ASI, PW7 Inspector Uttam Singh Jimiwal and PW10 SI Trilok Singh Khati are the Police Officers and took part in the investigation of the case. PW9 Brij Bhushan Juyal is the seizure witness. The prosecution in this case has examined the aforesaid witnesses and also led into evidence 15 exhibits. Though, the Forensic science Report has been found to be part of the record as 59-Ka, but has not been exhibited on behalf of the prosecution. The registration certificates/papers of the motorcycle or the diary seized on the intimation are also not exhibited in this case. The learned Trial Judge took into consideration the circumstantial evidence available on record and came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts. 6. In a case of murder, the question that should be considered, at the outset, by the Court in sisin, of the matter is, whether the prosecution has proved the death of the deceased to be homicidal in nature. PW8 Doctor Manoj Kushwaha has stated that on 23.06.2008, he was attached to L.D. Bhatt Hospital, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. On that day, on police requisition, he conducted postmortem on the dead body of Ravi Shankar at about 11:15 A.M. He found that the dead body to be 35 years of age and the death could have caused 24 hours before the postmortem examination. He found the following injuries: (i) Incised wound over anterolateral surface of chest wall 2 cm. lateral to left nipple running oblique down wards with sharp margins measuring 7 cm x 2 cm mediastinal deep, on pressing the chest wall, the blood pours out from the wound. (ii) Incised wound over left antiolateral surface of chest wall measuring 3 cm x 2 cm x mediastinal deep with sharp margins 3 cm lateral to the left nipple, blood fours out from the wound on pressing the chest. (ii) Incised wound over left antiolateral surface of chest wall measuring 3 cm x 2 cm x mediastinal deep with sharp margins 3 cm lateral to the left nipple, blood fours out from the wound on pressing the chest. (iii) Incised wound over anterior surface of chest was 7 cm down from the left nipple measuring 2 cm x 1 cm x mediastinal deep, blood pours out from the wound. Pressing the chest wall margins of wound are sharp. On exploring the above three wounds left 5th, 6th and 7th ribs are found cut sharply and left margin and base of heart latterly are found cut upto approx meas. 6 cm.x 1.5 cm into heart cavity with huge blood clots and about 2500 ml of haematoma in thoracic cavity, seen hematoma meas. about 100 ml also seen between the chest wall and back musculature area over left side around wound region left lung tissue also found incised at its base and above. (iv) Incised wound over ante .of left side of the wall mesu. 5 cm x 1.5 cm skin deep running obliquely about 4 cm above the left nipple. (v) Incise wound running obliquely found over it surface of left upper arm 9 cm above the elbow meas. 7 cm x 3 cm x muscle deep with blood clots around it. (vi) Incised wound over post surface of upper part of right upper arm about 11 cm below the shoulder tip running horizontally measuring 6 cm x 2 cm. x muscle deep with blood clot around the wound. The Doctor further stated that the injury no. 5 & 6 had blood clotting in it. The injury no. 1 to 3 on internal examination revealed that 5th, 6th & 7th left ribs were clean cut. The heart was cut on the left side edge which was measuring 6 cm and 1.5 cm. There was excessive hemorrhage and about 2500 ml blood was inside the chest. The left lung was also cut parallel to the injury on the heart. Approximately 100 ml blood was found deposited between ribs and chest therein. He further opined that all the injuries were caused by a sharp edged weapon. The death was caused due to shock as result of excessive bleeding. He also opined that immediately the death could have been caused because of these injuries. Approximately 100 ml blood was found deposited between ribs and chest therein. He further opined that all the injuries were caused by a sharp edged weapon. The death was caused due to shock as result of excessive bleeding. He also opined that immediately the death could have been caused because of these injuries. He also fixed the creation of injuries at around 9:00 PM on 23.06.2008. 7. The evidence of PW8 receives corroboration from the contents of the postmortem report which has been exhibited as 7Ka. There are some minor corrections made in the postmortem report but according to the learned Sessions Judge, such corrections by rewriting Pant Nagar as Kashipur is of not of much consequence as it is not disputed by the defence that the dead body of the deceased Ravi Shankar was put to postmortem examination and the postmortem examination was done at Kashipur. All other evidences pointed out the same. Thus, it is apparent from the aforesaid records that the death of the deceased was due to injuries on his chest, which is led to the cutting of the rib as well as the heart and lungs resulting into heavy bleeding and shock. The witness also stated that the postmortem was conducted in the presence of the Doctor Madan Mohan and the postmortem report has been prepared in the handwriting of Doctor Madan Mohan, but his signature does not appear on it. The learned Sessions Judge rightly held that the postmortem report cannot be disbelieved. 8. In this case, admittedly, the prosecution relied upon the circumstantial evidence. No eyewitness has been examined. The learned Sessions Judge rightly held that the postmortem report cannot be disbelieved. 8. In this case, admittedly, the prosecution relied upon the circumstantial evidence. No eyewitness has been examined. In a very long judgment, the learned Sessions Judge has discussed all the aspects of the case and finally summarized the circumstances, on which, he relied on to convict the two appellants at paragraph 44 of the impugned judgment, which reads as follows: ^^44- ?kVuk ds rqjar ckn nh xbZ xqe'kqnh rgjhj izn'kZd&1 esa ?kVuk ds le; e`rd jfo 'kadj ds ikl ghjks gks.Mk eksVj lkbZfdy la0 ;w-,- 06 ,Q&5985 lh-Mh-MkWu yky jax dh n'kkZ;h xbZ gS rFkk e`rd dks {ks=h; lkaln oknh eqdnek ds-lh-flag ckck dk ih-,- gksuk crk;k x;k gSA e`rd ds 'ko ds ikl mDr eksVjlkbZfdy rFkk nLrkost tks lkaln ds lfpo gksus ds ukrs e`rd ds ikl gksuk LokHkkfod Fks] ugha feysA ftl O;fDr tksxk flag ds ikl e`rd vafre ckj x;k Fkk] ml tksxk flag ds fo:) dksbZ lk{; ugha feyk u gh mlds ikl ls e`rd ds dksbZ nLrkost vFkok e`rd dh eksVj lkbZfdy feyhA e`rd dh eksVj lkbZfdy ryk'k fd;s tkus dk iqfyl }kjk xEHkhj iz;kl fd;k x;k tSlk fd dkxt la[;k 6d@3] 7d@17] 7d@18] 7d@19 ls Li"V gS fd vkl&ikl ds Fkkuks Bkdqj }kjk eqjknkckn Lokj jkeiqj] Hkxriqj] Hkkstiqj] ch-lh-vkj-ch- eqjknkckn jkeiqj] fctukSj dks eksVjlkbZfdy dh ryk'k djus gsrq 19-06-08 dks jsfM;ksxzke ls lans'k fn;k x;k rFkk i= fy[ks x;s ijUrq mDr eksVjlkbZfdy ugha feyhA e`rd ds 'kjhj ij /kkjnkj gfFk;kjksa ds dbZ ?kko Fks] ftuds dkj.k mldh e`R;q gqbZA ?kVuk dk dksbZ izR;{kn'khZ lk{kh ugha Fkk] ekeys esa dbZ fnuksa rd vfHk;qDrx.k dk dksbZ irk ugha pyk] mDr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa eq[kfcj ls vfHk;qDrx.k dh lwpuk feyus ds rF; ij lansg ugha fd;k tk ldrk] tcfd vfHk;qDrx.k LFkkuh; fuoklh gh FksA blh Øe esa 10-07-08 dks iqfyl dks eq[kfcj dh lwpuk feyus ij iqfyl ny }kjk 12-30 cts ढsyk iqy ij vfHk;qDrx.k lxhj vgen] nqyky] ekschu iq= ckcw] ekschu iq= ;kehu dks fxjrkj fd;k x;kA vfHk;qDr nqyky ls e`rd jfo'kadj dk uke irk fy[kh lwpuk funsZ'kuh cjken gqbZ rFkk vfHk;qDr nqyky o lxhj dh fu'kku nsgh ij vfHk;qDr ohjsUnziky ds ?kj ls eksVj lkbZfdy o ?kVuk ds le; eksVj lkbZfdy esa j[ks fofHkUu nLrkost cjken gq,A mDr nLrkostksa dks ih0MCY;w&5 jkt fd'kksj QlZok.k ds c;kuksa ds le; U;k;ky; esa izLrqr fd;k ftlus viuh eq[; ijh{kk ist& 12 o 13 esa mDr oLrqvksa dks fl} fd;k gSA mDr nLrkostksa dk tks fooj.k gS] mlls mDr nLrkost lkaln ds-lh- flag ckck o jfo'kadj ls gh lacaf/kr gksuk Li"V gksrs gSaA e`rd ls ywVh eksVjlkbZfdy Lo;a vfHk;qDrx.k lxhj o nqyky dh fu'kku nsgh ij vfHk;qDr ohjsUnziky ds ?kj ls cjken gqbZA mDr eksVj lkbZfdy ohjsUnziky ds ?kj gksus dk dksbZ Li"Vhdj.k vfHk;qDr ohjsUnziky dh vksj ls ugha fn;k x;k gSA mDr nLrkost vfHk;qDrx.k ds ikl fdl izdkj Fks] vfHk;qDrx.k }kjk ;g Li"V ugha fd;k x;k gSA e`rd ds 'kjhj ij /kkjnkj gfFk;kjksa ds fofHkUu ?kko FksA fxjrkj vfHk;qDrx.k dks Fkkus ykdj iwNrkN dh xbZ ftlesa vfHk;qDr nqyky o lxhj us pkdw o Nqjs ls 22-06-08 dh jkf= esa jfo'kadj dks ?kk;y dj ukys esa fxjkuk o mldh eksVj lkbZfdy ywVdj ohjsUnziky ds ?kj esa fNikuk dgk gS rFkk iqfyl }kjk tksxk flag ls iwNrkN fd;s tkus ij vfHk;qDrx.k dk fuf'pr gks tkuk dgkA iqfylny }kjk vfHk;qDr lxhj o nqyky dh fu'kku nsgh ij gh muds ?kjksa ls ,d Nqjk o pkdw o ?kVuk ds le; bu vfHk;qDrksa }kjk igusa diM+ksa dks cjken djuk dgk gSA mDr pkdw o diM+ksa dks fof/k foKku iz;ksx'kkyk ijh{k.k gsrq Hkstk x;k ftuesa vfHk;qDr lxhj ls cjken Nqjs o ekSds ls mBkbZ [kwukywnk feV~Vh ij jDr Hkh ik;k x;kA vfHk;qDr nqyky ls cjken pkdw ij jDr u gksuk ik;s tkus ek= ls vfHk;kstu dFkkud ij dksbZ ;qfDr;qDr lansg mRiUu ugha gksrk gS] tcfd mDr cjkenxh vfHk;qDr nqYkky ls iwNrkN ij vfHk;qDr nqyky }kjk gh vius ?kj ls djkbZ x;hA vfHk;qDr x.k ls cjken fofHkUu OkLrqvksa dh QnZ o cjkenxh LFky ds uD'kk utjh dks xokgksa us fl) fd;k gS o vfHk;qDrx.k ls rLdjks iwNrkN ,oa cjken fofHkUu oLrqvksa dk Fkkus dh th-Mh- esa Hkh mYys[k gS ftUgsa xokgksa us i=koyh esa gksuk Li"V fd;k gSA vfHk;qDr lxhj o nqyky ls mudh fu'kku nsgh ij gR;k esa iz;qDr gfFk;kj Hkh cjken gq,A ih0 MCY;w&5 jktfd'kksj QlZok.k us vfHk;qDr lxhj ls cjken Nqjk o ih0MCY;w&7 fujh{kd mRre flag ftfeoky us vfHk;qDr nqyky ls cjken pkdw ds laca/k esa c;kuksa esa tks gfFk;kjksa dk fooj.k fn;k gS ,oa ftldk fooj.k QnZ izn'kZ d&6 ,oa izn'kZ d&7 esa gS] ,oa ih0MCY;w&8 iksLVekVZe djus okys MkWDVj eukst dq'kokg us vius c;kuksa esa e`Rkd ds iksLVekVZe ds vuqlkj e`rd ds 'kjhj ij /kkjnkj gfFk;kj ds ?kko dk tks izdkj o eki crkbZ gS ,sls ?kko vfHk;qDrx.k lxhj o nqyky ls cjken gfFk;kjksa ls vkuk vlEHko gks] ,slk dksbZ rF; Li"V ugha fd;k x;k gSA vfHk;qDrx.k }kjk /kkjk 313 na0iz0la0 ds c;kuksa esa iqfyl lkf{k;ksa dks fgrc} lk{kh gksuk o vius f[kykQ lkft'ku o jaft'ku >wBk eqdnek pyuk dgk gS] ijUrq vfHk;qDrx.k dh vksj ls izfrijh{kk esa xokgksa ls ,slk dksbZ rF; Li"V ugha djok;k x;k fd vfHk;qDrx.k dh oknh eqdnek ih0MCY;w&1 ds-lh- flag ckck] ih0MCY;w&2 tksxk flag ls dksb Zjaft'k jgh gksA vfHk;qDrx.k dh vksj ls izfrijh{kk esa xokgksa ls ,slk Hkh dksbZ rF; Li"V ugha djok;k x;k fd vfHk;qDrx.k dh iqfyl lkf{k;ksa ls dksbZ jaft'k jgh gksA vfHk;qDrx.k lxhj] nqyky ls lkFk gh vfHk;qDr ekschu iq= ckcw ds laca/k esa ih0MCY;w&5 jktfd'kksj QlZok.k us viuh izfrijh{kk 118d@1 esa vfHk;qDr ekschu iq= ckcw ls bl eqdnesa ls lacaf/kr dksbZ cjkenxh u gksuk Li"V fd;kA lHkh iqfyl lkf{k;ksa us ekschu iq= ckcw ls dksbZ cjkenxh u gksus dk dFku fd;k rFkk vfHk;qDr ohjsUnziky ds ?kj ls ;|fi eksVj lkbZfdy cjken gksuk dgk] ijUrq vfHk;qDr ohjsUnziky dks jfo'kadj dh gR;k ds le; vU; vfHk;qDrksa ds 'kkfey jgus dk dFku ugha fd;kA mDr fLFkfr esa vfHk;qDrx.k lxhj] nqyky o ohjsUnziky ds fo:) lk{;ksa dh dfM+;ka tqM+rh gS rFkk leLr lk{; vfHk;qDrx.k lxhj] nqyky o ohjsUnziky ds nks"kh gksus dh vksj b'kkjk djrs gS rFkk i=koyh ij miYkC/k lk{;ksa ls vfHk;qDrx.k lxhj] nqyky ,oa ohjsUnziky ds fo:) vfHk;kstu dFkkud ij dksbZ lansg mRiUu ugha gksrk gSA 9. Taking the circumstances one by one, which are relied upon by the learned Trial Judge to hold the appellants guilty, we proceed to consider the same as follows: (i) Immediately, after the incident, the First Information Report has been registered for the offence under Section 365 of the Penal Code and it is stated that the deceased was riding the motor cycle bearing number UA06 F-5985. (C.D.Dawn red colour Hero Honda motor cycle). (ii) When the dead body of the deceased was recovered, the motorcycle and the papers that should be naturally with him, were not found. (iii) Joga Singh PW2 was found not to be implicated in the commission of the crime. This circumstance is not incriminating the appellant in the sense that just because Joga Singh was not found to be involved in the crime, it does not mean that the appellants have committed the crime. Moreover, neither the investigating agency nor the learned Trial Judge in the impugned judgment have delineated what are the factors that led to the conclusion that there is no incriminating material against the person, who was admittedly the last person who has seen the deceased. (iv) The police tried to locate the motorcycle by taking appropriate steps. (v) Upon postmortem examination the dead body of the deceased was found to have been sustained the multiple incised injuries, which led to his death. (vi) There is no direct eyewitness of the occurrence and whereabouts of the deceased was not known and, therefore, an adverse inference has to be drawn as they were absent from their ordinarily place of residents. (vii) However, the investigating officer has not delineated the facts about his attempt to trace out the appellant during the course of investigation to come to the conclusion that actually the appellant was not present at their place of resident or their regular work place. The efforts taken by the Instigating Officer is totally silent on this aspect. (viii) On 10.07.2008, on the information given by the police informant, at about 12:30 PM, the appellants Sagir Ahmad and others were arrested at Dhela Bridge. (ix) On the pointing out of the appellant Dulal, the diary/directory of the deceased Ravi Shankar was seized at the pointing out of the appellants. (viii) On 10.07.2008, on the information given by the police informant, at about 12:30 PM, the appellants Sagir Ahmad and others were arrested at Dhela Bridge. (ix) On the pointing out of the appellant Dulal, the diary/directory of the deceased Ravi Shankar was seized at the pointing out of the appellants. On the pointing out of the appellants Dulal Ali and Sagir Ahamd, the motorcycle was recovered and was seized from the house of accused Virendra Pal along with different documents. As far as these two circumstances are concerned, the diary and the information directory belonging to the deceased Ravi Shankar were never put to any forensic examination. None of the witnesses stated about the identification of the diary in the sense that the handwriting appearing thereon has not been proved that of the deceased Ravi Shankar. Moreover, through none of the witness has stated that the same diary which has been produced before the Court was of the deceased. It is not proved that on ordinary course of day to day life, he was holding the diary. In a case based on entirely circumstantial evidence, it is appropriate for the prosecution to conclusively establish each circumstance. The diary could have been sent to handwriting expert for comparison of his admitted signatures and that could have conclusively established that the diary was of the deceased Ravi Shankar. Moreover some witnesses who are acquainted with the handwriting or who had seen using the diary in his day to day course of business could have been examined. Having not done so, the prosecution has created lacunae in proof of the case. (x) Recovery of the motorcycle at the instance of the appellants Dulal Ali and Sagir Ahmad. As far as the recovery of the motorcycle is concerned, it can be noted that the registration certificate has not been proved in this case. Secondly, the Investigating Officer has stated that on the indication of ( fu'kkunsgh ) of both the appellants Dulal and Sagir Ahmad the motorcycle was recovered. Under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, only the fact discovered can be proved against the accused as an incriminating circumstance. The fact discovered may be a tangible fact or the intangible fact. It may also be a material object. Under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, only the fact discovered can be proved against the accused as an incriminating circumstance. The fact discovered may be a tangible fact or the intangible fact. It may also be a material object. The Investigating Officer stated that after arrest, all the four accused persons have stated about commission of the crime, such statement is not admissible. However, they further revealed that they took away the motorcycle and kept it in the house of Virendra Pal. When multiple persons are stating about the same fact and leads to discovery of the motorcycle, allegedly, stolen by them, then the questions arises that how much statements should be admissible against any of the appellants. 10. We take note of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872, which reads as follows: 27. How much of information received from accused may be proved.—Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved. 11. In the interpreting of this Section, the Privy Council in the case of Pullukuri Kottaya and others vs. Emperor, A.I.R. (34) 1947 Privy Council 67, has held as follows: “Section 27, which is not artistically worded, provides an exception to the prohibition imposed by the preceding section, and enables certain statements made a person in police custody to be proved. The condition necessary to bring the section 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 as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered may be proved. The section seems to be based on the view that if a fact is actually discovered in consequence of information given, some guarantee is afforded thereby that the information was to, and accordingly can be safely allowed to be given in evidence; but clearly the extent of the information admissible must depend on the exact nature of the fact discovered to which such information is required to relate. Normally, the section is brought into operation when a person in police custody produces from some place of concealment some object, such as a dead body, a weapon or ornaments said to be connected which the crime of which the informant is accused. Mr. Megaw, for the crown, has argued that in such a case the “fact discovered” is the physical object produced, and that any information which relates distinctly to that object can be proved. Upon this view information given by a person that the body produced is that of a person murdered by him, that the weapon produced is the one used by him in the commission of a murder, or that the ornaments produced were stolen in a decoity would all be admissible. If this be the effect of section 27, little substance would remain in the ban imposed by the two proceedings sections on confession made to the police, or by person in police custody. That ban was presumably inspired by the fear of the legislature that a person under police influence might be induced to confess by the exercise of undue pressure. But if all i.e. required to lift the ban be the inclusion in the confession of information relating to an object subsequently produced, it seems reasonable to suppose that the persuasive powers of the police will prove equal to the occasion, and that in practice the ban will lose its effect. On normal principles of contraction their Lordships think that the proviso to Section 26, added by Section 27, should not be held to nullify the substance of the section. In their Lorship’s view it is fallacious to treat the “fact discovered” within the section as equivalent to the object produced; the fact discovered embraces the place from which the object is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this, and the information given must relate distinctly to this effect. Information as to past user, or the past history, of the object produced is not related to its discovery in the setting in which it is discovered. Information supplied by a person in custody that “I will produce a knife concealed in the roof of my house” does not lead to the discovery of a knife; knives were discovered many years ago. Information supplied by a person in custody that “I will produce a knife concealed in the roof of my house” does not lead to the discovery of a knife; knives were discovered many years ago. It leads to the discovery of the fact that a knife if concealed in the house of the information who is knowledge, and if the knife is proved to have been used in the commission of the offence, the fact discovered is very relevant. But if to the statement the words be added “with which I stabbed” these words are inadmissible since they do not relate to the discovery of the knife in the house of the informant.” 12. Thus, it is only the fact that is discovered is admissible. The same fact can be revealed by many persons but to this Court it appears to be unreasonable to hold that all the four accused persons together, in unison, revealed the facts of the concealment of the fact that motorcycle was in the house of Virendra Pal. The investigating Officer did not say that each of the accused were interrogated at different times in the absence of any other suspects and only one by one, each suspect stated about the concealment of the motorcycle. It is further seen that no statement of the accused was recorded though it is not always necessary to record the statement of the accused in custody leading to discovery of the material facts relevant for proof of the case. It is always necessary that there should be some kind of documents, it may be in the seizure itself, on which the Investigating Officer should record the exact information given by the accused in custody, which could have led to the court to go to appreciate the exact fact or information that was given by the accused in custody and that led to the discovery of the fact. In this case, there is no such record and nowhere the documents produced by the prosecution shows that the documents were produced and exact information leading to the discovery of the incriminating articles were stated in substance before the Court. 13. The next circumstance is that the document that was produced in the Court was proved and that it was found to be connected to the informant K. C. Singh Baba. 13. The next circumstance is that the document that was produced in the Court was proved and that it was found to be connected to the informant K. C. Singh Baba. The next circumstance, on which, reliance has been placed by the learned Sessions Judge is that wearing apparels and one of the cloth was found to be stained with blood on Forensic Examination. However, on closure examination of the statement of the appellants recorded under Section 313 of the Code, reveals that the exact information or the exact opinion given by the Scientific Officer of the FSL has not been put to the accused persons, specifically it is only stated that these reports are incriminating and how does the appellant explained them. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Code is not empty formality. It is integral part of the criminal justice. The appellant must be asked, specifically, about the incriminating evidence appearing against him. So that he has an opportunity to explain the same. In this case, those things having not been done, this Court is of the opinion that since the appellants are in custody for about 14 years, the benefit of doubts should be given to them instead of remanding the matter for patching of the lacunae committed by the learned Trial Judge. It is also borne out from the record that the knife recovered at the instance of Dulal Ali was not found with any blood stained. 14. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid analysis of the materials available on record and in view of the defence case suggested, this Court is of the opinion that the lacunae thus as pointed out in the preceding paragraphs, creates sufficient and reasonable doubts regarding the complicity of the appellant in the commission of the crime. 15. It is also in the opinion of the Court that the chain of circumstances has not been conclusively established in this case and that the circumstances which have been established, have not been put to the accused persons under Section 313 of the Code in a proper way giving them an adequate opportunity to explain the same. In view of the above analysis, in the opinion of the court the circumstances do not form a complete chain of events unerring pointing towards the guilt of the accused. In view of the above analysis, in the opinion of the court the circumstances do not form a complete chain of events unerring pointing towards the guilt of the accused. They are entitled to be given the benefit of doubt. 16. In the result the appeal is allowed. The judgment of conviction and sentence under Sections 394, 302 and 411 vide order 11.04.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar are hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the offence. The appellant is in custody. He be set at liberty forthwith upon execution of a bail bond as per Section 437-A of the Code and as per the terms and conditions of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kashipur, deems just and proper. 17. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the court concerned for compliance.