JUDGMENT : SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA, J. 1. Appellants Maheshwar Kumhar and Swamber Behra have challenged the judgment of conviction dated 10.05.1995 and order of sentence dated 12.05.1995 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Singhbhum West at Chaibasa, in Sessions Trial No. 503 of 1990, whereby he has convicted the appellants for the offence under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Penal Code’ for brevity) read with Section 34 of the Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 201 of the Penal Code. 2. Originally, 07 persons were charge-sheeted and faced trial, but only these two appellants have been convicted and rest five persons have been acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge because of paucity of evidence. 3. The prosecution case, in short, is that informant Parai Gope (PW-2) got his fardbeyan recorded on 13.05.1990 stating that on last Wednesday (09.05.1990) his co-villager Swamber Behra came to his house at 11/12 hours and took his son Vimal @ Bhikhu Gope saying for taking some photographs. They took the Hero Cycle along with them. On Friday his sister-in-law Jema Gopin (PW-8) came to him and told that last Wednesday at about 1-2 hours both the boys Vimal and Swamber came to her house and Vimal Gope told her that his parents are talking about negotiating some land and asked her to pay a sum of Rs. 700/- and he had also brought Swamber for her assurance. She had given that amount to Vimal. After about half an hour, both the boys left on the same cycle. On Saturday (12.05.1990) while the informant was returning home from Amda Bazar at about 4.30 p.m., and while he was crossing the river near his house, he saw one ‘Ganji’ lying on the road. He grew suspicious and found that it was the ‘Ganji’ of his son Vimal Gope. The Ganji was stained with blood. He also found dragging mark on the sand. He followed the dragging mark and at some distance found the dead body of his son lying near a Nala. The dead body had decomposed. Flesh from face, both arms and waist were consumed by wild animals. The informant identified the black colour Full Pant of his son. He also found dragging mark on the sand. He followed the dragging mark and at some distance found the dead body of his son lying near a Nala. The dead body had decomposed. Flesh from face, both arms and waist were consumed by wild animals. The informant identified the black colour Full Pant of his son. The informant returned home and disclosed this fact to his co-villagers and sent information to Manki of Dhansari. The informant came to learn that accused Swamber Behra had not returned home from that very day (09.05.1990). The informant further stated that though the informant or his son Vimal Gope @ Bhikhu had no enmity with the accused Swamber Behra but still he suspected that his son Vimal Gope and accused Swamber Behra might have quarreled over taking Hariya (liquor) and accused Swamber committed murder of his son Vimal and concealed the dead body in the Nala and fled away with the cycle. 4. S.I. Indrapal Oraon (PW-9) arrived at the village and recorded the fardbeyan of the informant on the basis of which a formal F.I.R. was drawn up against accused Swamber Behra. After investigation, he submitted charge-sheet against 07 accused persons under Sections 364, 302, 201, 379, 120-B of the Penal Code, on the basis of which cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. 5. Defence denied the allegations and appellant Swamber Behra denied to have made any confessional statement before anybody. 6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 09 witnesses in total. PW-1 Dr. Arun Kumar Gupta has conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and PW-9 Indrapal Oraon is the Investigating Officer of this case. PW-2 Parai Gope happens to be the father of the deceased and informant of this case. PW-3 Pratap Pingua, PW-4 Lakhan Gope, PW-5 Rukmani Gope, PW-6 Govind Pingua, PW-7 Shaymsunder Gope and PW-8 Jema are the different witnesses who have stated regarding the circumstances appearing in this case against the appellants. 7. Basing on the evidences of these witnesses, the learned Sessions Judge held that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against these two appellants beyond all reasonable doubts and acquitted the other five accused persons of the charges levelled against them. 8. 7. Basing on the evidences of these witnesses, the learned Sessions Judge held that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against these two appellants beyond all reasonable doubts and acquitted the other five accused persons of the charges levelled against them. 8. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the case of the prosecution is not proved beyond reasonable doubts as the circumstances of this case have not been conclusively established. The extra-judicial confession being under duress and under threat of the villagers is not admissible in evidence. Though he would not challenge the finding of the learned Sessions Judge that the death of the deceased was homicidal, however, he very emphatically submitted that there is no material on record to connect the appellants with the commission of the death of the deceased. 9. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, would submit that since has prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts, the appeal should be dismissed. 10. Though it is not disputed by the appellants the nature of death of the deceased, we have also examined of evidence of PW-1 and also perused the post-mortem report. A joint reading of the evidence of PW-1 and the post-mortem report reveals that the death of the deceased was due to injury to his head. During post-mortem examination, he was found to have sustained injury on his scalp which was fractured transversely involving both parietal bone and temporal bones and brain matter was completely lost. The Doctor (PW-1) opined that the death was caused due to shock and hemorrhage due to head injury and the head injury was caused by hard and blunt object like lathi. He further opined that head injury was sufficient to cause death of deceased in the ordinary course of nature. He fixed the time of post-mortem examination since death to be between 5 to 6 days of the death. Thus, it is clear that the death of the deceased was due to the injury to his head involving fracture both the parietal and the temporal bones. He fixed the time of post-mortem examination since death to be between 5 to 6 days of the death. Thus, it is clear that the death of the deceased was due to the injury to his head involving fracture both the parietal and the temporal bones. Since the learned counsel for the appellant did not did not agitate this question with much emphasis, we are not inclined to entertain the niceties of the evidences and appreciation thereof regarding the medical opinion rendered by PW-1 and accept the finding of the learned Sessions Judge that the death of the deceased was because of the injury on his head which could probably be caused by assault by means of a blunt weapon like lathi. 11. For ascertaining the complicity of these appellants in this commission of the crime, the evidences of PW-2, PW-5, PW-6 and PW-8 are important. 12. A perusal of the evidence of PW-6 Govind Pingua reveals that he had gone to ease out at the village tank about one year ago prior to his testimony on Wednesday at about 11.00 a.m. At that time, he saw Swamber Behra (appellant) and Vimal Gope (deceased) coming together. He did not see again Vimal Gope alive. His further evidence is that he saw and identified the dead body of Vimal Gope by the side of Potam river on Saturday. Father of Vimal Gope told him that Swamber had taken away his son on the plea of taking photograph and murdered him. He stated in his cross-examination that he saw Swamber with Datuan and soap. 13. PW-2 Parai Gope is the father of Vimal Gope (deceased) who has stated that Swamber arrived at his house on Wednesday at about 11.30 a.m. and took away his son Vimal Gope on the plea of taking photographs at Champua. His son left on the Hero bicycle. Since then his son did not return home. He searched for his son but he could not get any trace of his son. His sister-in-law Jema (PW-8) arrived at his house on Friday and disclosed that Swamber Behra and Vimal Gope visited her house at Village Khairpal and Swamber asked her to pay a sum of Rs. 700/- saying that his father had asked for money for purchase of land. Swamber had also assured her that his father had sent Vimal for her assurance. 700/- saying that his father had asked for money for purchase of land. Swamber had also assured her that his father had sent Vimal for her assurance. They left her house after receipt of money. His further evidence is that he found the dead body of Vimal by the side of river on Saturday. He stated in his cross-examination that Swamber took away his son and there was nobody of his village at his house. 14. Similarly, PW-5 Rukmani Gope, mother of deceased Vimal, has stated that at 11.00 a.m. Swamber had visited her house and took away her son and she also states about the statement of Jema (PW-8) regarding giving of Rs. 700/- to Swamber for the purchase of land, etc. 15. The evidence of PW-2 and PW-5 shows that Swamber had visited their house on Wednesday, i.e. 09.05.1990 and took away Vimal. He also went to the house of PW-8 Jema Gope from where he collected Rs. 700/- and after several days, the dead body of the deceased was found. 16. Admittedly, in this case, no eyewitnesses are available to prove the case of the prosecution. The prosecution relied on certain circumstances and the learned Sessions Judge held that the prosecution had proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts. The circumstances are as follows: (i) Homicidal nature of death of the deceased. (ii) Arrival of appellant Swamber in the house of PW-2 and PW-5 and taking away the deceased along with him on 09.05.1990 at around 11.30 a.m. on a Wednesday. (iii) Arrival of appellant Swamber in the house of PW-8 along with the deceased and asking from her Rs. 700/- and thereafter their leaving the house of PW-8. (iv) Finding of the dead body in the riverbed after about 4 to 5 days of the occurrence. (v) The extra-judicial confession made by the appellants before the villagers regarding commission of the crime. 17. It is settled principle of law that in a case based entirely on the circumstantial evidence, the prosecution should prove that the circumstances on which it is relying upon are conclusively established and there should not be any doubt regarding the conclusiveness of such proof of circumstances. The circumstances must not be consistent with any other theory but the theory of guilt of the accused. The circumstances must not be consistent with any other theory but the theory of guilt of the accused. All such circumstances, though individually not proving the guilty of the accused, if taken together, should be forming a complete chain of events unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused. In other words, such chain of circumstance should rule out every other hypothesis other than the one the prosecution proposes to establish i.e. the guilty of the appellants. 18. In this case, the most important circumstance on which the prosecution relies upon is the last seen of the deceased with appellant Swamber. So, there is no allegation that appellant Maheshwar was also accompanying Swamber when they went to the house of PW-2 and PW-5 or that of PW-8. Moreover, the time gap between the last seen together of the deceased with Swamber Behra (appellant No. 2) and the finding of the dead body is about 4 to 5 days. The last seen theory should be pressed into service to hold that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt only when the time gap between the last seen of the deceased alive in the company of the accused and the discovery of the dead body of the deceased is so small that rules out any other possibility or the possibility of any other foul-play by any other person and the presumption may arise only against the accused in that case. However, in this case, the time gap is so vast that it is more than 4-5 days and, so, the last seen theory cannot be pressed into service and the learned Sessions Judge committed error by holding that the last seen theory has been proved in this case. 19. The second aspect is recovery of a bicycle from the riverbed. The evidence of PW-9 reveals that when he got an information that the villagers have detained Maheshwar and Swamber in their village, he proceeded there and interrogated them and they said that the cycle of the deceased has been buried in the sand of the river and the bicycle was recovered. The bicycle was never produced before the Court. It was never identified by any of the witnesses. It was not put to any kind of forensic examination. Moreover, no separate statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 has been recorded. The bicycle was never produced before the Court. It was never identified by any of the witnesses. It was not put to any kind of forensic examination. Moreover, no separate statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 has been recorded. The sum and substance of the statement or information revealed by the appellants are also not reproduced by the Investigating Officer in course of trial. So, the recovery of the bicycle will not be itself lead to conviction of the appellants. 20. The last circumstance, that is heavily relied upon by the prosecution in this case, is the extra-judicial confession made by appellants Swamber Behra and Maheshwar Kumhar before the witnesses like Pratap Pingua, Lakhan Gope and S.I. Indrapal Oraon. 21. It is evident from a joint reading of evidences of PW-2 Parai Gope and PW-4 Lakhan Gope that these two witnesses along with Ankur Pingua heard that Swamber has returned home on 19.05.1990, i.e. about 10 days after the occurrence. They went to catch hold of Swamber. Swamber and Gangadhar were going together. These witnesses chased them and caught them and brought them to the house of one Manki. There they confessed that they have committed murder of the deceased. 22. Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides for proof of confessional statement. It reads as under: “24. Confession caused by inducement, threat or promise, when irrelevant in criminal proceeding - A confession made by an accused person is irrelevant in a criminal proceeding, if the making of the confession appears to the Court to have been caused by any inducement, threat or promise, having reference to the charge against the accused person, proceeding from a person in authority and sufficient, in the opinion of the Court, to give the accused person grounds, which would appear to him reasonable, for supposing that by making it he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature in reference to the proceedings against him.” 23. Thus, a confession caused by inducement, threat or promise is neither relevant nor admissible. It is also difficult to rely upon an extrajudicial confession as the exact word or even the words as nearly as possible have not been reproduced. Such statement cannot be said to be voluntarily. So, the extra-judicial confession has to be excluded from the purview of consideration to bring home the charge. It is also difficult to rely upon an extrajudicial confession as the exact word or even the words as nearly as possible have not been reproduced. Such statement cannot be said to be voluntarily. So, the extra-judicial confession has to be excluded from the purview of consideration to bring home the charge. In order to be relevant and admissible, an extra-judicial confession requires to be voluntarily, truthful, reliable and beyond reproach. In this case, it appears that the confession was allegedly made by the appellants when they were caught hold by PWs. 2, 5 and 8 and were brought to the house of Manki. Thus, they were under some kind of restraints by the witnesses as well as the villagers. It is also not shown by the prosecution that the appellants made the confession, in our considered opinion, to give them grounds, which would appear to them reasonable, for supposing that by making it they would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature in reference to the proceedings against them. In that view of the matter, it is very unsafe to rely upon such extra-judicial confession and, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Sessions Judge committed error by relying upon such extra-judicial confession in coming to conclusion against the appellants. The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence are, therefore, not at all sustainable. 24. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The judgment of conviction dated 10.05.1995 and order of sentence dated 12.05.1995 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Singhbhum West at Chaibasa, against both the appellants, named above, in Sessions Trial No. 503 of 1990, arising out of Majhagaon (Kumardungi) P.S. Case No. 27 of 1990 dated 13.05.1990, G.R. No. 298 of 1990, are hereby set aside. The appellants are hereby acquitted of the offence under Sections 302 and 201 read with 34 of the Penal Code. Since they are stated to be on bail, they be set at liberty by cancelling their bail bonds before the learned Trial Judge. 25. Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand disposed of. 26. Urgent Certified copies as per Rules. 27. Records of the Trial Court be transmitted to it, forthwith, along with a copy of this judgment.