JUDGMENT : NUPUR BHATI, J. 1. The State of Rajasthan has filed this appeal under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 27.02.1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bali, (Rajasthan) (hereinafter referred as ‘Trial Court’) in Sessions Case No.14/1985, whereby the accused was acquitted from the charges framed for the offences under sections 302, 364 and 417 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant, namely, Mr. Hussain submitted a written complaint (Ex.P/39) on 14.05.1985 before the S.H.O., Police Station, Nana, District Pali, stating therein that on 11.05.1985, his nephew namely, Saleem and Harun who were engaged in the business of buying and selling goats, came to him and apprised that they have made a deal with Deva son of Neti Raika to buy 100 goats and asked the complainant to give them Rs.15,000/-. In the written complaint, it was further stated that he (complainant) gave a sum of Rs.15,000/- to Saleem, the denomination whereof was; hundred currency notes were of Rs.100/- and hundred currency notes were of Rs.50/-. Thereafter, his nephews went to Kothar, however, the complainant pleaded that he does not know as to whether the money was parted with Deva or not. Yesterday, i.e. on 13.05.1985 at about 09-10:00 in the morning Deva Raika came to Chamunderi and asked Harun and Saleem to give him consideration and take the goats. At that time, complainant was present there and Harun and Saleem left the place with Rs.15,000/-. For bringing the goats, Sabir S/o Faiz Mohd. and Mohan Bavri also accompanied with his nephews and they all boarded the bus at 12’O clock. Thereafter, the complainant waited for his nephews up till late night. The complainant further alleged that today, in the morning he enquired from Sabir and Mohan Bavri about his nephews, they apprised that yesterday Deva had taken them to Kambeshwar Ji Mahadev to bring goats. Sabir and Mohan Bavri also apprised the complainant that in the afternoon at about 02:00 pm they were made to sit at the boarder ( dkadM+ ), whereas Deva took Harun and Saleem with him to bring the goats from ahead and both accompanied Deva. Thereafter, about about one hour, Deva Raika returned and there were blood stains on his shirt ( dqrkZ ) and the ‘Lathi’, which he was carrying. Thereafter, about about one hour, Deva Raika returned and there were blood stains on his shirt ( dqrkZ ) and the ‘Lathi’, which he was carrying. On being asked by them, Deva apprised that he has done away with two goats and offered blood to Mataji and Harun and Saleem were sent away with goats. They further apprised that thereafter they came to Kothar with Deva. Sabir and Mohan Bavri also apprised that they came home late at night despite Deva’s refusal. The complainant further stated in the written complaint that since Harun and Saleem did not return with the goats up till morning, he got suspicious and started mounting search of his nephews with Musa son of Faiz Mohd., Sabir son of Suleman, Mohan Bavi, and Sabir in Kambeshwar Mahadev forest. During the search, they found the dead body of Harun, soaked in blood, lying under a tree on southern side of the temple, however, they could not locate Salim. It was further alleged that while leaving, Harun was wearing a ladies’ wrist watch, however, the same was missing and there was no money in the pocket of Harun. Saleem was also wearing a wrist watch, whose whereabouts are also not known. The complainant stated in the written complaint that Deva had murdered his nephews by deceiving them for money and theafter they returned to Chamunderi from the forest. With these averments/allegations, the complainant gave the report for taking action against the culprit. 3. The SHO, Police Station Nana, on receipt of the aforesaid written complaint registered a case vide F.I.R. No.33/1985 (Ex.P/40) for the offences under sections 417, 364 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, in pursuance of information furnished by the accused the dead body of Saleem was also recovered from the hills. 4. To establish charges against the accused-Devaram under sections 302, 364 and 417 of the Indian Penal Code as framed against him, the prosecution laid evidence through 27 witnesses and produced 50 material objects and documents. After the prosecution closed its evidence, statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he claimed innocence. Nine documents were also produced in defence to prove innocence of the accused. 5. Having regard to the materials brought on record in Session Case No.14/1985, the Trial Court framed the following issues: English Translation: “1. After the prosecution closed its evidence, statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he claimed innocence. Nine documents were also produced in defence to prove innocence of the accused. 5. Having regard to the materials brought on record in Session Case No.14/1985, the Trial Court framed the following issues: English Translation: “1. Whether in the afternoon of 13.5.85 or around this time at border of Kothar Kambeshwari Mahadevji forest or around this area, the accused murdered Saleem and Harun? 2. Whether in the afternoon of 13.5.85 or around this time, the accused deceitfully took Saleem and Harun with him with the intent of murdering them? 3. Whether in the afternoon of 13.5.85 the accused deceitfully took Saleem and Harun with him in the garb of selling goats whereas the intent of the accused was never to sell goats?” 6. After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for defence, the trial Court vide judgment dated 27.02.1997 proceeded to acquit the accused as the prosecution was unable to establish the charge under sections 364, 302 and 417 of the Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt. 7. Challenging the aforesaid judgment passed in Session Case No.14/1985, the learned Public Prosecutor vehemently and fervently submits that the learned Trial Court erred in not considering the statement of Mohan (PW-14), who was eye witness and supported the case of prosecution, merely on the ground that his statement could not be believed as he died before he could be cross-examined in the Court. He also submits that the learned trial Court utterly failed to consider certain other aspects of the case such as blood-stained Lathi, admission of guilt by the accused-Devaram himself that he inflicted Lathi blows and caused the death of Harun and Saleem, recovery of money from the house of the accused; all of these aspects point towards the guilt of the accused. He further submits that the admission of guilt by the accused before the police as well as before Jagmal (PW-10) and Bhaggaram (PW-4) gives credence to the case of the prosecution. He also submits that the learned trial Court has discredited the testimony of Sabir (PW-15) merely on the basis of some irrelevant contradictions. 8. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by learned Public Prosecutor and have perused the materials available on record. 9. He also submits that the learned trial Court has discredited the testimony of Sabir (PW-15) merely on the basis of some irrelevant contradictions. 8. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by learned Public Prosecutor and have perused the materials available on record. 9. The prosecution, in order to substantiate its case on the point of extra-judicial confession of the accused examined Moti Singh (PW-5), Jahur Mohammad (PW-9), Samiya (PW-11) and Jagmal (PW-10) before the learned trial Court. 10. It is revealed from the testimony of Jahur Mohammad (PW- 9) that when he was at Kambeshwari Hill along with SHO and Fakeer Mohammad, someone came and told them that the accused was made to sit inside the Panchayat Building at Kothar. Thereafter, they reached at the Panchayat building and the Police questioned the accused as to who killed Saleem and Harun, to which the accused replied that he had killed both of them. The relevant part of the testimony of Juhur Mohammad (PW-9) is being reproduced as under: ^^brus esa fdlh us vkdj dgk fd dksBkj esa iapk;r ds vanj nsok dks idM+ dj cSBk j[kk gS] bl ij eSa] Qdhj vgen o Fkkusnkj lkgc dksBkj x;sA ogk¡ ij iqfyl us nsokjke dks idM+k vkSj iwNk dh lyhe o gk:u dks fdlus ekjk gS rks nsok us crk;k fd eSaus ekjk gSA nsok ds iapk;r esa gksus dh lwpuk fdl veq[k O;fDr us nh mldk uke ugha crk ldrkA tc lwpuk nh rc eSa Fkkusnkj lkgc ds ikl FkkA dksBkj ge thi ysdj x;s FksA dksBkj esa Fkkusnkj ds vykok iqfyl okys 3&4 vkSj thi esa lkFk FksA nsokjke }kjk ifqyl ds lkeus ekjus dh ckr dh gk¡ Hkjus dh ckr eSaus vkSj fdlh dks ugha crkbZA tc eqfYte dks dksBkj ls yk;s rks jkLrs esa iqfyl us eqfYte ls dksbZ iwNrkN ugha dhA iapk;r esa iwNrkN dh Fkh lyhe dh yk'k ds ckjs esaA nsok us iapk;r esa iqfyl ds iwNus ij ;g crk;k Fkk fd yk'k igkM+ ij iM+h gS tks crkrk gw¡A** English Translation:- “Meanwhile, someone came and told that Deva is being held captive in the Panchayat at Kothar. On this, me, Fakir Ahmed and the Police Officer went to Kothar. There, the police officer caught Devaram and asked him who killed Salim and Harun to which, he replied he killed them. On this, me, Fakir Ahmed and the Police Officer went to Kothar. There, the police officer caught Devaram and asked him who killed Salim and Harun to which, he replied he killed them. I cannot tell the name of the person who informed me about Deva being in the Panchayat. When the information was given, I was with the police officer. We had gone to the storehouse in the jeep. Apart from the police officer, there were 3-4 other person in the jeep at Kothar. I did not tell anybody else about Devaram admitting in front of the police to having killed. When the accused was brought from Kothar, the police did not interrogate him on the way, they had interrogated him in the Panchayat about the dead body of Salim. Deva, upon the interrogation made by the police in the panchayat, told that the dead body was lying on the mountain. Come, I will tell you.” 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Perumal Raja v. State, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 12 has held that once the suspected person comes into the hands of a police officer, he is no longer at liberty and would be deemed to be in ‘custody’ within the meaning of sections 25 to 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is being reproduced as under: “28. .....Thus, in our considered view the correct interpretation would be that as soon as an accused or suspected person comes into the hands of a police officer, he is no longer at liberty and is under a check, and is, therefore, in “custody” within the meaning of Sections 25 to 27 of the Evidence Act. It is for this reason that the expression “custody” has been held, as earlier observed, to include surveillance, restriction or restraint by the police.” 12. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to take into consideration section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, which is being reproduced as under: “26. Confession by accused while in custody of police not to be proved against him.– No confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police-officer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, shall be proved as against such person. Confession by accused while in custody of police not to be proved against him.– No confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police-officer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, shall be proved as against such person. Explanation.– In this section “Magistrate” does not include the head of a village discharging magisterial functions in the Presidency of Fort St. George or elsewhere, unless such headman is a Magistrate exercising the powers of a Magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1882.” 13. What emerges from the bare perusal of section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act is that no confession made by any person while he is in the custody of police-officer shall be proved against such person unless such confession is made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate. 14. In the case at hand, it is seen that the confession was made by the accused to the police while he was made to sit inside the Panchayat building, which would be deemed as being in the custody of police; therefore, the confession made by the accused to the police would be hit by section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act and in sequitur is not admissible as evidence and cannot be proved as against the accused. The prosecution, in order to substantiate its case on the point of admission of guilt by the accused, has also relied on the evidence of Samiya (PW-11). The relevant part of the statement of Samiya (PW-11) is being reproduced as under: ^^eSaus Hkyk o txh;k dks ns[kk FkkA ;s nksuksa nsok ls ckr dj jgs FksA txh;k o Hkyk us eqyfte ls iwNk Fkk fd dlkbZ;ksa ds Nksjks us dw.k ekjh;k vkSj dBs ekjh;k rks eqyfte us dgk Fkk fd eSa ekjh;ks dkcs'ojth ds igkM+ esaA ftl le; nsok ls ;g ckr iwNh ml le; iqfyl okys ekStnw ugha FksA ;g ckr iapk;r esa iwNh Fkh fnu vLr gksus esa nks ?kaVs dk fnu ckdh FkkA bu nksuksa tuks us lkFk&lkFk iwNkA** English Translation:- “I saw Bhala and Jagiya. They were talking to Deva. Jagiya and Bhala asked the accused that who killed the butcher’s sons and where, to which, the accused replied that I killed them at the hills of Kambeshwari. When this question was asked to Deva, there was no police personnel present at that time. They were talking to Deva. Jagiya and Bhala asked the accused that who killed the butcher’s sons and where, to which, the accused replied that I killed them at the hills of Kambeshwari. When this question was asked to Deva, there was no police personnel present at that time. This question was asked in the Panchayat. There were two hours left in the sunset when this question was asked by both of them.” 15. Samiya (PW-11) has stated that he saw Jagmal (PW-10) and Bhaggaram (PW-4) were talking to the accused and he heard them asking the accused as to who killed Saleem and Harun to which the accused answered that he murdered Saleem and Harun. However, both Jagmal (PW-10) and Bhaggaram (PW-4) have been declared as hostile witnesses therefore, the testimony of Samiya (PW-11) as well, was unworthy of credence and does not substantiate the case of the prosecution on the point of admission of guilt by the accused. 16. The prosecution has presented two eyewitnesses namely – Mohan (PW-14) and Sabir (PW-15) in order to prove the guilt of accused. However, the learned trial Court has not taken into account the statement of Mohan (PW-14) on the ground that he died before he could be cross-examined by the defence, thus, his statement cannot be proved against the accused. 17. We are of the view that the truthfulness of the evidence tendered by a witness can be tested only when the witness is cross-examined. Therefore, the examination-in-chief of PW-14, without an opportunity to the accused to cross-examine him, cannot be used against the accused. Moreover, the statement of Mohan (PW-14) is neither corroborated nor supported by the surrounding circumstances, thus, his statement does not advance the case of the prosecution. 18. The prosecution has also placed reliance on the statement of Sabir (PW-15). However, the learned Trial Court has considered the statements of Sabir (PW-15) to be untrustworthy on the ground of material contradictions in the statements given by him before the Police and the Magistrate. 19. 18. The prosecution has also placed reliance on the statement of Sabir (PW-15). However, the learned Trial Court has considered the statements of Sabir (PW-15) to be untrustworthy on the ground of material contradictions in the statements given by him before the Police and the Magistrate. 19. The relevant part of the statement of Sabir (PW-15) before the Magistrate under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Ex.D/8) is being reproduced as under: ^^uk'rk ikuh djus ds ckn nsok us dgk fd pyks cdjh Vkyus pyrs gSa fQj cdjh Vkyus exjs x;sA exjs esa nsok us eq>]s eksgu o gk:.k dks exjk esa cSBk fn;k vksj dgk eaS vkSj lyhe Åij tk jgs gS rqe yksx cdjh b/kj vkos rks /;ku j[kukA nsok mij tkdj vk/ks ?kaVs ls vdsyk okfil vk;k vksj 150&200 QqV njwh ls vkokt nh fd gk:.k b/kj vk fQj ge rhuksa mlds ikl tkus yxs rks nsok us dgk gk:.k dks vdsys HkstksA fQj ge nksuks uhps cSB x;s o gk:.k pyk x;kA gk:.k ikl igwWpk rks igwWprs gh Þekjs jsß ekjs dh vkokt vkbZ vkSj rks geus ns[kk ¼[kM+s gksdj½ fd nsok gk:.k dks ykfB;kW ls ekj jgk FkkA gk:.k uhps fxjk gqvk FkkA fQj eSa vksj eksgu ogkW ls Mj ds Hkkx x;sA fQj jkr Hkj ge exjs esa ?kwers jgs jkLrk Hkwy x;sA fQj fnu mxrs gh ge pkeq.Msjh xkWo igwWps ogk¡ gk:.k ds ekek] ek¡ o vU; fj'rsnkjks dks bryk nh fQj eSa vksj eksgu xkWo okyks lkFk ysdj yk'k crkus ys x;sA exjs ds uhps gk:.k dh yk'k iM+h FkhA lyhe dh yk'k ml le; ugha feyhA fQj ckn es nsok dks tc iqfyl us idM+ fy;k rks mlds lkFk pydj lyhe dh yk'k exjs ij crkbZA fQj ge ?kj ij vk x;sA** 20. It is seen from Ex.D/8 that Sabir (PW-15), in his statement before the Magistrate under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has stated that after reaching at the hill of Kambeshwari Mahadevji, the accused asked Sabir, Mohan and Harun to sit at the ‘Magre’ and took Saleem with him up to the hill. After half an hour, the accused came back and from a distance of 150-200 feet called for Harun, and asked only Harun to come. Sabir (PW-15) and Mohan(PW-14) stayed back and saw that the accused was beating Harun with his Lathi. After half an hour, the accused came back and from a distance of 150-200 feet called for Harun, and asked only Harun to come. Sabir (PW-15) and Mohan(PW-14) stayed back and saw that the accused was beating Harun with his Lathi. Upon seeing this, both of them ran away due to fear and spent the night in the forest as they could not find the way out. Thereafter, the next morning, both of them went to Chamunderi Village and informed the family members of Saleem and Harun about the incident. Thereafter, Sabir (PW-15) and Mohan (PW-14) took villagers with them to show the dead body of Harun; however, they could not find the dead body of Saleem. 21. It would also be relevant to refer the statement of Sabir (PW-15) before the police (Ex.D/7). Thereafter, Sabir (PW-15) and Mohan (PW-14) took villagers with them to show the dead body of Harun; however, they could not find the dead body of Saleem. 21. It would also be relevant to refer the statement of Sabir (PW-15) before the police (Ex.D/7). The same is reproduced hereunder: ^^ge cl ls jokuk gksdj dkEcsljth egknso igq¡ps o ogk ls nsok gedks ;g dgdj taxy esa ysdj jokuk gks x;k fd cdjh;k vkxs gS lks ysus pyks ftl ij ge mlds lkFk jokuk gq, o dkQh vkxs taxy esa x;s rks eq>s o eksgu okxjh dks dkdj ij fcBk;k o dgk fd rqe ;gh ij cSBks D;ksfd jsckjh tkrh es cdjh;k cspus ij eukbZ gS o rqEgs ns[kk rks cdjh;k ugha nsaxs ml le; djhc 2 cts Fks rFkk ges ogh ij fcBkdj nsokjke] gk:u o lyhe dks lkFk ysdj taxy esa vkxs jokuk gks x;s o tYnh gh cdjh;k ysdj okil vkus dk nsok us dgk ftl ij ge ogh ij cSB x;sA djhc ,d ?kaVk ckn nsok okil gekjs ikl vk;k ftlds dqrsZ ij [kqu ds nkx Fks o ykBh Hkh [kqu ls Hkjh gqbZ Fkh ftl ij eSus o eksgu us nsok dks iqNk fd [kqu dSls yxk gS rks nosk us dgk fd cdjh;k ugha py jgh Fkh blfy, nks cdjh;k ekjdj ekrkth dks fNaVs fn;s gS o gk:u] lyhe dks cdjh;k nsdj pkeq.Msjh dh rjQ jokuk dj fn;s gSA fQj ge nksuks nsok ds lkFk jokuk gks x;kA nsok cgqr ?kcjk;k gqvk Fkk ge rhuks dkEcsljth igqaps ogk pk; ikuh ih;s rFkk ogh ij jD[kh ,d lkbZfdy nsok us yh tks nsok dksBkj ls ykdj ;gk jD[kh gksuk dg jgk Fkk fQj dksBkj ds fy, jokuk gq, jkLrs es nsok ds ckj&ckj cgqr T;knk ilhuk vk jgk FkkA nsj jkr ge rhuks dksBkj igqaps tgk¡ nsok us ges :dus dk dgk exj geus euk fd;k o mlls lkbZfdy ekaxh rks nsok us euk dj fn;k fd lkbZfdy esjh ugha gS nqljks ls ekaxdj yk;k gq¡ fQj eSa o eksgu dkQh jkr xqtjus ij dksBkj ls pkeq.Msjh iSny jokuk gksdj igqpsA lqcg rd g:u o lyhe cdjh;k ysdj ?kj ugh vk;s Fks bl ij gqlSu iq= xuhth us eq>s o eksgu dks buds cdjh;k ysdj ugh vkus ckcr iqNk ftldks eSus o eksgu us mDr lkjh ckr crkbZ ftl ij gqlSu dks 'kd gqvk rc gqlSu] eqlk iq= QSt eksgEen] lyhe iq= lqyseku] eksgu o eSa lHkh pkeq.Msjh ls jokuk gksdj gk:u o lyhe dh ryk'k esa dkEcslj egknso ds igkM es o taxy es x;s o ryk'k dh rks gk:u dh yk'k [kqu ls Hkjh gqbZ taxy es isM+ ds uhps iMh gqbZ ns[kh o lyhe dk dksbZ irk ugha pykA** 22. A bare perusal of Ex.D/7 shows that the accused took Saleem and Harun with him inside the forest and asked Sabir (PW-15) and Mohan (PW-14) to stay back at ‘Kankar’. Thereafter, when the accused came back after one hour, both of them saw blood stains on ‘Kurta’ and ‘Lathi’ of the accused. When they questioned the accused regarding the blood stains he told them that he had killed two goats and offered blood to ‘Mataji’. Thereafter, both of them went to Kothar along with the accused and from there both of them went to Chamunderi. As Harun and Saleem did not returned till the morning, Hussain inquired with Sabir (PW-15) and Mohan (PW-14) about Saleem and Harun, to which they told him everything. However, Hussain got suspicious and went to Kameshwar Mahadev hill along with Moosa, Saleem son of Sulaiman, Mohan (PW-14) and Sabir (PW-15) to search for Harun and Saleem. Upon their search, they found dead body of Harun in the forest on hill, however, they were unable to find Saleem. 23. It is quite evident that there were glaring contradictions between the statement of Sabir (PW-15) before the police (Ex.D/7) and the Magistrate (Ex.D/8). 24. The learned Trial Court observed that Sabir (PW-15) during his cross-examination stated that in his statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Ex.D/8) before the Magistrate he had mentioned that the accused was carrying ‘Kadi wali Lathi’. However, the learned Trial Court after perusal of his statement under Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure found that the said version was not written in Ex.D/8. Learned Trial Court also observed that Sabir (PW-.15) stated in the Court that his statement before Police (Ex.D/9) from ‘g’ to ‘h’ was incorrect, wherein it has been written that “I thought that due to my previous statements being incorrect, Devaram might be acquitted and therefore I am giving correct statement now.” PW.15 Sabir also stated that his statement before the Police (Ex.D/9) from ‘a’ to ‘b’ was incorrect, wherein it was stated by him that Devaram came back after half an hour. Further, PW-15 Sabir also stated that his statement before the Police (Ex.D/9) from ‘c’ to ‘d’ was incorrect wherein it was stated that there were blood stains on the ‘Angrakhi’ as well as on ‘Lathi’ of Devaram and that Devaram offered two goats to ‘Mataji’. Further, PW-15 Sabir also stated that his statement before the Police (Ex.D/9) from ‘c’ to ‘d’ was incorrect wherein it was stated that there were blood stains on the ‘Angrakhi’ as well as on ‘Lathi’ of Devaram and that Devaram offered two goats to ‘Mataji’. He also stated that he gave these statements out of fear to save himself. Sabir (PW-15) also stated in the Court that his statement before the Police (Ex.D/7) from ‘m’ to ‘n’ was incorrect, wherein it was stated by him that the accused asked him and Mohan (PW-14) to stay back at ‘Kankar’ and took Saleem and Harun and when the accused came back after one hour there were blood stains on his ‘Kurta’ as well as on his ‘Lathi’. 25. We find that the learned Trial Court rightly observed that there were material contradictions in the statements of Sabir (PW-.15) given under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Ex.D/7) and section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Ex.D/8) recorded by the investigating officer and the Magistrate respectively, inasmuch as on one hand he had stated in his statement before the Police (Ex.D/7) that the accused took both Saleem and Harun with him however, in his statement before the Magistrate (Ex.D/8) he had stated that the accused initially took Saleem with him and asked Mohan (PW-14), Harun and him to stay back. Thus, the testimony of Sabir (PW-15) is untrustworthy and does not establish the case of the prosecution. 26. The prosecution has also relied upon the testimony of Magan Lal (PW-1), Bhabuta (PW-6), Banne Singh (PW-26) and Phoolchand Constable (PW-16) with respect to the blood-stained clothes and Lathi. The learned trial Court has observed that constable Phoolchand (PW-16) during his cross-examination admitted that he could not tell the name of the person, to whom he handed over the articles at the FSL, Jaipur. He also could not tell as to how many seals were there on each article. This witness stated in the Court that on 10 th he stayed at Police Station Pali and received the articles from the Office of Superintendent of Police on 10 th itself, which articles were submitted in the Malkhana of Police Station Pali on the same day. Thereafter, on the next day i.e. on 11 th said witness collected the articles from the Police Station and deposited the same with the FSL, Jaipur. Thereafter, on the next day i.e. on 11 th said witness collected the articles from the Police Station and deposited the same with the FSL, Jaipur. Further, no one of Police Station Pali has been examined by the prosecution to substantiate the version given by PW-.16 Phoolchand. The learned Trial Court has also observed that as per note appended on Ex.P/50 i.e. FSL report, the article bearing mark ‘b’, the Vest/cfu;ku was missing. According to the FSL report (Ex.P/50), blood groups of the ten packets sent to the FSL, Jaipur could not be identified and therefore, the accused cannot be linked to the crime on the basis of the expert opinion as well. Thus, in view of aforementioned facts that one of the important evidence, that was Vest/cfu;ku was missing from the packet, and was thus, not examined by the FSL, Jaipur and other ten packets containing blood samples also could not be identified, there is no iota of doubt that the accused cannot be linked to the crime on the basis of expert opinion. 27. The learned Trial Court, after taking into consideration the recovery made by the Investigating Officer (PW-26) from the house of the accused, which included a blood-stained cloth, currency notes of Rs.3,900/- and a blood-stained watch, has observed that the complainant Hussain (PW-23) in the FIR (Ex.P/40) has stated that Rs.15,000/- was given to Salim whereas, in the Roznamcha at Shivganj, he has stated that an amount of Rs.20,000/- was given to Salim. Learned Trial Court has also observed that Hussain in his examination has stated that after 2-3 days from the death of Harun and Salim, he asked Arshia regarding Rs.15,000/- to which she replied that Salim had kept Rs.5,000/- at home. Thus, under the given circumstances, it has been rightly observed by the learned Trial Court, that firstly, Arshiya (Salim’s mother) was not examined by the prosecution and secondly, there were contradictions between the contents of FIR (Ex.P/40) and the statement of Hussain (PW-23) with regard to the money given by Hussain to Salim. 28. Moreover, this Court also finds that the learned Trial Court has rightly taken into consideration the fact that it could also not be proved that with whom the accused made the deal for the selling of goats. 28. Moreover, this Court also finds that the learned Trial Court has rightly taken into consideration the fact that it could also not be proved that with whom the accused made the deal for the selling of goats. Also, it is seen that Sabir (PW-15) deposed in the Court that even Harun, Salim and Mohan did not inform him with regard to the place they were going to buy goats and that it was only when they were leaving for Chamunderi by bus, that they got to know that they were heading to Kambeshwarji and even at this point, the accused was not asked as to whose goats are being sold to them. Therefore, under the given circumstances, learned Trial Court has rightly observed that the prosecution has failed to present its case in a clear and reliable manner. As discussed aforesaid, there is no definite place mentioned by the witnesses with respect to buying of goats and the witnesses namely; Harji (PW-2), Bhagga Ram (PW-4), Moti Singh (PW-5), Jagmal (PW-10), Rama (PW-13), Devaram (PW-18), Nanka (PW-22) and Chhagan Singh (PW-25) also turned hostile and thus, the story of the prosecution could not be proved. 29. We now come to the scope of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act on the information given by the accused and the recovery made by the I.O. thereto. For the purpose of the same, the relevant provision is reproduced as under: “ 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.” 30. In the case of Mohammed Inayatullah v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1976 SC 483 , the Hon’ble Apex Court laid down four conditions required to invoke Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: “... 12. It will be seen that the first condition necessary for bringing this section into operation is the discovery of a fact, albeit a relevant fact, in consequence of the information received from a person accused of an offence. The second is that the discovery of such fact must be deposed to. The Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: “... 12. It will be seen that the first condition necessary for bringing this section into operation is the discovery of a fact, albeit a relevant fact, in consequence of the information received from a person accused of an offence. The second is that the discovery of such fact must be deposed to. The third is that at the time of the receipt of the information the accused must be in police custody. The last but the most important condition is that only “so much of the information” as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered is admissible. The rest of the information has to be excluded. The word “distinctly” means “directly”, “indubitably”, “strictly”, “unmistakably”. The word has been advisedly used to limit and define the scope of the provable information. The phrase “distinctly relates to the fact thereby discovered” is the linchpin of the provision. This phrase refers to that part of the information supplied by the accused which is the direct and immediate cause of the discovery…” 31. While considering the facts of this case, in the light of the provision as well as aforementioned principles, it is seen that the accused stated that the dead body of Salim can be recovered from the Hills (‘Pahadi’) but this is not his statement that he hide the dead body of Salim in the Hills (‘Pahadi’). Thus, one of the essential conditions required for invoking Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, that is, the fact to be proved based on the information of the accused given while in the custody of police should distinctly relate to the discovery of the fact, is not present in this case. 32. Furthermore, with regard to the recovery of Lathi from the Bala ka Puliya made on the basis of information of the accused, it is seen that the recovery of Lathi has been made from an open place which is accessible to public at large. On this issue, we would refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Manjunath & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 14 SCR 727 . The relevant para of the said judgment is reproduced as under: “27. Prima facie, in the present facts, the 3 conditions above appear to be met. On this issue, we would refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Manjunath & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 14 SCR 727 . The relevant para of the said judgment is reproduced as under: “27. Prima facie, in the present facts, the 3 conditions above appear to be met. However, the Trial Court held, given that the discoveries made were either from a public place or from an area where other persons also resided, reliance thereupon, could not be made. We find this approach of the Trial Court to be correct.” 33. Therefore, the recovery of Lathi made on the basis of information given by the accused does not come within the sweep of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act as the Lathi has been recovered from the place which is accessible to the public at large. 34. Secondly, it is also seen that the blood stains found on the Lathi and the blood of the deceased, have not been examined and therefore, for lack of corroborative evidence, this Court concurs with the finding of the learned Trial Court that the recovery of Lathi along with blood stains, based on the information given by the accused is not a reliable piece of evidence and does not help establishing the guilt of the accused. 35. The information given by the accused may fall under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and admissible in evidence but the fact remains that only Rs.3,900/- were recovered from the house of deceased whereas the accused’s claim of giving Rs.15,000/- raises suspicion about the prosecution story. The prosecution’s case that the accused’s information would fall under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act as the same is partially corroborated by the recovery of Rs.3,900/- was rightly not accepted by the learned Trial Court as there is discrepancy in the amount recovered and in such circumstances, the prosecution story stands demolished. 36. The prosecution’s case that the accused’s information would fall under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act as the same is partially corroborated by the recovery of Rs.3,900/- was rightly not accepted by the learned Trial Court as there is discrepancy in the amount recovered and in such circumstances, the prosecution story stands demolished. 36. This Court also observes that the scope of interference in the acquittal order passed by the learned Trial Court is very limited, and if the impugned judgment of the learned Trial Court demonstrates a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a catena of judgments and thus, on that count also, the impugned judgment deserves no interference by this Court in the instant appeal. 37. At this juncture this Court deems it necessary to refer to the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Mallappa & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka, (2024) 3 SCC 544 and Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka, 2024 AIR SC 2252, as under: Mallappa & Ors. (Supra) : "...36. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are intended to prevent any failure of justice. vs. State of Karnataka, 2024 AIR SC 2252, as under: Mallappa & Ors. (Supra) : "...36. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are intended to prevent any failure of justice. The principles which come into play while deciding an appeal from acquittal could be summarized as: (i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive inclusive of all evidence, oral or documentary; (ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge; (iii) If the Court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be followed; (iv) If the view of the Trial Court is a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal; (v) If the appellate Court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in appeal on a re-appreciation of evidence, it must specifically address all the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal and must cover all the facts; (vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate Court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the decision of the Trial Court." Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and Ors. (Supra):- "38. Further, in the case of H.D. Sundara & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 9 SCC 581 this Court summarized the principles governing the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of CrPC as follows: "8.1. The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the presumption of innocence; 8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal, is entitled to reappreciate the oral and documentary evidence; 8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal, after reappreciating the evidence, is required to consider whether the view taken by the Trial Court is a possible view which could have been taken on the basis of the evidence on record; 8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible; and 8.5. If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible; and 8.5. The appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible." 39. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of interference by an appellate Court for reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court in favour of the accused has to be exercised within the four corners of the following principles: (a) That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; (b) That the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; (c) That no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record." 38. In the light of the judgments cited above and the facts and circumstances of the case as presented before us, this Court observes that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt as there are glaring contradictions between the statements made by the eyewitness, Sabir (PW-15), before the Police (Ex.D/7) and the Magistrate (Ex.D/8) and one of the important evidences, i.e. Vest/cfu;ku, was missing from the packet, which could not be examined by the FSL, Jaipur as well as the blood group in ten packets could not be identified. Further, as observed by the learned Trial Court, the information given by the accused does not fall under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act as such information did not distinctly relate to the discovery of a new fact and that, the Lathi which was recovered on the basis of the information given by the accused was recovered from a place which was accessible to public at large. In addition to these, there have been major contradictions in the testimony of the complainant, Hussain (PW- 23) and the contents of FIR (Ex.P/40), with regard to the sum of money given by him to the deceased for the purchase of goats, which further weakened the prosecution case. 39. In addition to these, there have been major contradictions in the testimony of the complainant, Hussain (PW- 23) and the contents of FIR (Ex.P/40), with regard to the sum of money given by him to the deceased for the purchase of goats, which further weakened the prosecution case. 39. As an upshot of the discussions made herein above, we find no substance in the appeal preferred by the State and therefore, the same is dismissed. The judgment dated 27.02.1997 passed by the learned court below, is thus, upheld.