JUDGMENT : Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J 1. This Appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.01.2020 passed by the Sessions Judge, Janjgir-Champa (CG) in Sessions Trial No.48/2019 whereby, the Appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.100/-with usual default stipulation. 2. As per the prosecution case, on 24.05.2019 at 1.00 in the noon, when Head Constable Sanjay Ujir (PW-7) and Constable Shyam Bhushan Rathore (PW-8) were standing in front of police station Shivrinarayan, the accused/Appellant came there and informed them that he killed his wife by throttling her neck at about 8.00 am as he got fed up on account of frequent quarrels that took place between them and after committing the said crime, he locked the door of the house and also disclosed that he was having the key. The said fact was recorded in the daily diary vide Entry No.1299 on 24.05.2019 at police station Shivrinarayan (Ex.P-1c). Inspector NP Tandon (PW-3) along with Praveen Sahu (PW-9) and PS Sen (PW-10) proceeded to the spot to verify the fact mentioned by the Appellant and the said fact was recorded vide Entry No.1300 in the daily diary (Ex.P2c). After reaching the spot, they found that the house of the Appellant was locked and after obtaining the key, got the door opened by Head Constable-Saroj Kumar Patle (PW-1) and found that the dead body of the wife of the Appellant namely Usha was lying on the floor inside the house. On the spot, 0-merg and 0-FIR (Ex.P-9 and Ex.P-10) were registered at about 16.00 hrs. Spot map (Ex.P-7), crime details form (Ex.P-11) were also prepared. After giving the notice (Ex.P-4), inquest report (panchnama) (Ex.P-5) was prepared. Numbered FIR (Ex.P-17) was registered on the same day at about 17.40 hours and thereafter, the Appellant was arrested on the same day at 7.45 pm vide Ex.P-14. Dead body of the deceased was subjected to postmortem and vide report Ex.P-12, Dr. Anvita Dhruv (PW-5) opined that the cause of death was throttling and it is homicidal in nature. 3. Numbered FIR (Ex.P-17) was registered on the same day at about 17.40 hours and thereafter, the Appellant was arrested on the same day at 7.45 pm vide Ex.P-14. Dead body of the deceased was subjected to postmortem and vide report Ex.P-12, Dr. Anvita Dhruv (PW-5) opined that the cause of death was throttling and it is homicidal in nature. 3. During the course of trial, the Appellant abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried and his statement was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C wherein, he has taken a defence of alibi as at the crucial time of the incident, he had gone for performing labour work at the house of one Dilip Kumar (DW-1) and that he was present at his house and he was informed about the incident that some unknown person killed his wife. He further states that he performed love marriage with the deceased against the will and wishes of her family members and her caste society and therefore, they were having animosity with them for the said reason and wanted to expel them from the village. He also stated that he had gone along with the members of the village to his house and found that the body of his wife was lying in an unconscious condition, his father was also not present and his mother had gone to neibhour’s house. He further stated that with the help of the village people, he checked his wife and found that she was dead. On the advice of the village people that information has to be given to the police, he along with village Up-Sarpanch Premlal Kenwat (PW-4), Munna Singh (not examined), Dilip Kumar (DW-1) and others, reported the matter to the police that an unknown person has killed his wife and he is suspecting the family members and the members of the caste community of his deceased wife and he has also examined Dilip Kumar (DW-1) in his defence. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited 20 documents. The learned trial Court, after evaluating the evidence and facts, convicted the accused/Appellant as aforesaid. Hence this Appeal. 5. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited 20 documents. The learned trial Court, after evaluating the evidence and facts, convicted the accused/Appellant as aforesaid. Hence this Appeal. 5. Shri Sharma, learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that material witnesses namely Dujbai Barman (PW-2) and Premlal Kenwat (PW-4) have not supported the case of the prosecution and from the statement of Dilip Kumar (DW-1), the fact of alibi has also been proved that at the crucial time, the Appellant was present at his house for labour work and after coming to know about the said fateful incident, he reached the house and thereafter, when the village people had given information to the police and when the police came to his house, the door was found open, but a false case has been made out that at the crucial time, the door was found locked. He further submits that there was no seizure of key from the Appellant and at the time of lodging of the FIR, the Appellant was not made an accused and he was arrested subsequent to the lodging of the said FIR on the same day at about 7.45 pm, therefore, even the statement of the Appellant is hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act and the confession made before the police is not admissible. He further submits that there is a complete want of evidence and merely on the statement of the police witnesses, the Appellant has been convicted though it is settled that when there are two possible views, the view which is favorable to the accused and benefits him ought to be accepted. He further submits that the prosecution has also failed to prove any motive for such crime and there is no direct evidence and the case is based on the circumstantial evidence and the chain is also not complete. He further submits that according to Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the burden of proving the fact beyond reasonable doubt rests on the prosecution. He placed reliance on the judgment rendered in the matter of Shivaji Chintappa Patil vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2021 SC 1249 . 6. He further submits that according to Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the burden of proving the fact beyond reasonable doubt rests on the prosecution. He placed reliance on the judgment rendered in the matter of Shivaji Chintappa Patil vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2021 SC 1249 . 6. Per contra, Shri Nayak, learned State Counsel supported the impugned judgment of conviction and submitted that the Appellant himself reached the police station and made a confession upon which, the key was obtained from the police officer as the Appellant after committing the said crime, locked the door and with the help of the said key when the door was opened, the dead body was found, therefore, Section 27 of the Evidence Act applies and the fact discovered is admissible. He further submits that merely because the village people have not supported the case of the prosecution, the evidence of the police witnesses cannot be discarded, therefore, the judgment of the trial Court is well merited and does not call for any interference. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, examined the evidence, perused the documents available on record as also the judgment. 8. Admittedly, in the instant case, there is no direct evidence to connect the accused/Appellant with the crime in question and the material witnesses Dujbai Barman (PW-2) and village Up-Sarpanch Premlal Kenwat (PW-4) have turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution and perusal of their evidence would show that they had disclosed that at the crucial time of the incident, the Appellant was present at the house of Dilip Kumar (DW-1) for labour work, who had also supported the said version. Dilip Kumar (DW-1) further deposed that the Appellant was doing the work as Mason at his house and he along with Munna Singh (not examined) was present at his house when 2-3 village people came to his house and informed about the incident. 9. Dujbai Barman (PW-2) also deposed that the Appellant solemnized love marriage with the deceased out of his caste, therefore, there was animosity between both the communities. She further deposed that in the morning of the date of incident, the sister of the deceased along with 4-5 members of community of the deceased, came to the house of the Appellant and hurled abusive language against him. She further deposed that in the morning of the date of incident, the sister of the deceased along with 4-5 members of community of the deceased, came to the house of the Appellant and hurled abusive language against him. When the Appellant had gone for labor work, one Nirmala shouted that the deceased was lying unconscious, then she along with 2-3 other village women, informed the Appellant and when he reached the spot, they found that the deceased had already died. She further deposed that the Appellant and the deceased were living happily and due to fear of caste community of the deceased, the deceased was not going for work to earn her livelihood. 10. Premlal Kenwat (PW-4) has also stated in a similar line that he along with Dilip Kumar (DW-1) and the Appellant as also 8-10 people of the village reached the house of the Appellant and noticed the incident, thereafter, they along with the Appellant gave the information to the police and when the police party came to the spot, the door of the house of the Appellant was already open and not in locked condition. 11. The police personnel had given a different version in support of the case of the prosecution which does not match with the statements of the village people. Head Constable Sanjay Ujir (PW-7) deposed that when he along with Shyam Bhushan Rathore (PW-8) was standing in front of police station on 24.05.2019 at noon, the Appellant approached them and informed about the incident that he killed his wife by throttling her neck and locked the door and then they had informed the said fact to the SHO NP Tandon (PW-3), which was recorded in the daily diary vide Entry No.1299 vide Ex.P-1. Shyam Bhushan Rathore (PW-8) also deposed in the similar line. Inspector NP Tandon (PW-3) deposed that to ascertain the information received vide Ex.P-1 after lodging the entry in the daily diary vide Ex.P-2, he proceeded to the spot. Shyam Bhushan Rathore (PW-8) also deposed in the similar line. Inspector NP Tandon (PW-3) deposed that to ascertain the information received vide Ex.P-1 after lodging the entry in the daily diary vide Ex.P-2, he proceeded to the spot. The Appellant handed over the key of his house to Head Constable Saroj Kumar Patle (PW-1) who, with the help of the said key, opened the door of the Appellant’s house and found that the dead body of the deceased/wife of the Appellant namely Usha was lying on the floor inside the house and the Appellant has made confession, therefore, on the spot, 0-merg and 0-FIR were registered vide Ex.P-9 and Ex.P-10 respectively. Death inquest proceeding has been done after giving notice vide Ex.P-4 and inquest memo (naksha panchnama) (Exp-5) was prepared. He further deposed that spot map (Ex.P-11) was prepared and from the spot, in presence of witnesses Munna Singh (not examined) and Dujbai Barman (PW-2), broken bangles of blue colour and one ear phone of mobile were recovered vide Ex.P-6. Dujbai Barman (PW-2) stated in para-2 of her evidence that from the spot, broken bangles were recovered vide Ex.P-6 and at para-4, she deposed further that one ear phone of mobile was also seized from the spot and the said fact was unrebutted in the cross-examination. Though she has admitted the said fact, but she has not read over the seizure memo that from the spot inside the house of the Appellant, broken bangles and one ear phone of the mobile were found. 12. The dead body of the deceased was subjected to postmortem which was done by Dr. Anvita Dhruv (PW-5) who, on examination vide Ex.P-12, found that death of the deceased was caused by throttling and it is homicidal in nature and she also found bruises over the soft tissues of the neck of the deceased. She further found that in front of the neck, there was a bluish color measuring 4” x 1”. The fact that the deceased died on account of throttling and death was homicidal in nature was not challenged by learned Counsel for the Appellant and the case of defence is that some unknown person has killed the wife of the Appellant, therefore, the material question is whether the prosecution is able to prove the author of the said crime beyond all reasonable doubts. 13. In a celebrated case of Aghnoo Nagesia vs . 13. In a celebrated case of Aghnoo Nagesia vs . State of Bihar ( AIR 1966 SC 119 ) also, the Appellant has lodged the FIR and on perusal of his statement, the axe and the dead body of the deceased were discovered from his house. With regard to the fact that to what extent, the information given by the accused before the police in the form of FIR amounts to a confessional statement and whether such information can be used by the prosecution with the help of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the relevant paras-18 and 21 are required to be dealt with, which read as under:- “18. If the first information report is given by the accused to a police officer and amounts to a confessional statement, proof of the confession is prohibited by Section 25. The confession includes not only the admission of the offence but all other admissions of incriminating facts related to the offence contained in the confessional statement. No part of the confessional statement is receivable in evidence except to the extent that the ban of Section 25 is lifted by Section 2.” XXXX “21. Section 27 applies only to information received from a person accused of an offence in the custody of a police officer. Now, the Sub-Inspector stated he arrested the appellant after he gave the first information report leading to the discovery. Prima facie therefore, the appellant was not in the custody of a police officer when he gave the report, unless it can be said that he was then in constructive custody. On the question whether a person directly giving to police officer information which may be used as evidence against him may be deemed to have submitted himself to the custody of the police officer within the meaning of Section 27, there is conflict of opinion. See the observations of Shah, J. and Subba Rao, J. in State Of Uttar Pradesh v. Deoman Upadhyaya. For the purposes of the case, we shall assume that the appellant was constructively in police custody and therefore the information contained in the first information report leading to the discovery of the dead bodies and the tangi is admissible in evidence. See the observations of Shah, J. and Subba Rao, J. in State Of Uttar Pradesh v. Deoman Upadhyaya. For the purposes of the case, we shall assume that the appellant was constructively in police custody and therefore the information contained in the first information report leading to the discovery of the dead bodies and the tangi is admissible in evidence. The entire evidence against the appellant then consists of the fact that the appellant gave information as to the place where the dead bodies were lying and as to the place where he concealed the tangi, the discovery of the dead bodies and the tangi in consequence of the information, the discovery of a blood-stained chadar from the appellant's house and the fact that he had gone to Dungi Jharan Hills on the morning of August 11, 1963. This evidence is not sufficient to convict the appellant of the offences under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.” 14. In the instant case, the information has been given outside the police station i.e. in front of the police station to two police personnel and thereafter they had given the same to the SHO based upon which, the police party proceeded to the spot. It has been stated that the Appellant had also brought a key after the commission of the said incident and with the help of the said key when the police party reached the spot and opened the lock of the door of the Appellant’s house, they found the dead body of the deceased inside the house and the same was found in the postmortem report that death was homicidal in nature. 15. During investigation, no seizure has been prepared and even the description of the key has also not been recorded. However, during the trial, no such key and lock were produced or exhibited. There is another serious infirmity in the case of the investigation that no panchnama for opening the door at the crime scene was made and the village people particularly Up-Sarpanch of the village Premlal Kenwat (PW-4) had categorically deposed that when the police party reached the village, the door of the Appellant’s house was not locked and the same was already open and the prosecution case has not re-examined the said witness on such score. Further, there is no unimpeachable evidence to show that at the crucial time when the deceased was murdered, the Appellant was present in the house. The Appellant, in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, stated that he along with his father and mother and the deceased wife was normally residing in the house and explained that when they reached the spot, his father was not present and the mother had gone to the neighbour’s house and he had gone for labour work and in his absence, such fateful incident took place. The said fact was duly supported by the prosecution witnesses of the village and they have not supported the case of the prosecution. 16. It is settled preposition that when there are two possible views, the benefit shall always go to the accused and the said preposition has been reiterated in the matter of Shivaji Chintappa Patil vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2021 SC 1249 and the relevant para-32 reads thus:- “32. It is more than settled principle of law that if two views are possible, the benefit shall always go to the accused. It will be apposite to refer to the following observations of this Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (Supra):- “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 .. (1973) 2 SCC 808 , 1973 SCC (Cri) 1048, this Court made the following observations : (SCC p. 820, para 25) “25. 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 wherein the guilt of the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence.” 17. This principle has a special relevance in cases wherein the guilt of the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence.” 17. In view of above, considering the overall evidence available on record and in the light of aforesaid principles of law relating to circumstantial evidence, we are of the view that there is no legally admissible evidence available on record which can justify the conviction of the Appellant, therefore, we do not find it apposite to hold that the prosecution has established the guilt of the Appellant beyond all reasonable doubts.&[ 18. In these circumstances, benefit of doubt must go to the Appellant. Accordingly, the Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed upon the Appellant under Section 302 of the IPC is hereby set aside and he is acquitted of the said charge. The accused/Appellant is reported to be on bail. His bail bonds shall remain in operation for a period of 6 months from today in view of the provisions contained under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. He shall appear before the higher Court as and when directed.