JUDGMENT : Ananda Sen, J. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the Judgment of Conviction dated 19th December, 2016 and Order of Sentence dated 22nd December, 2016 passed by the Additional Session Judge-I, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No.01 of 2013, whereby the appellant has been held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201, 364, 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5,000/-for the offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code; further the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 (ten) years and fine of Rs.1,000/-for the offence punishable under Sections 364/34 of the Indian Penal Code; the appellant has been further sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 03 (three) years and fine of Rs.1,000/-for the offence punishable under Sections 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code; the appellant has been further sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 02 (two) years and fine of Rs.500/-for the offence punishable under Sections 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code; and in default of making payment of fine, the appellant has been ordered to serve further simple imprisonment of six months. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the First Information Report has been lodged after a delay of 1 (one) month 8 (eight) days without any sufficient explanation. He submits that Etwa Soy went missing on 04.03.2012, but, surprisingly no missing report has been lodged at any police station. He submits that the cause of delay, as explained in the First Information Report, is unbelievable. He further submits that a skeleton was recovered, which was also not sent for examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory to verify whether the same was of Etwa Soy or not. He submits that the witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and only on the basis of some hear-say statement and confessional statement of the accused, this appellant has been convicted. He submits that the evidence, which has been collected, is not admissible as per the Indian Evidence Act. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that neither the pant, shirt and sandal of the deceased were seized nor were produced before the Court. He submits that in fact no seizure list was prepared for the materials which were seized. He submits that the evidence, which has been collected, is not admissible as per the Indian Evidence Act. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that neither the pant, shirt and sandal of the deceased were seized nor were produced before the Court. He submits that in fact no seizure list was prepared for the materials which were seized. He lastly submits that the alleged confession, which was made by the appellant and has been considered to be extra judicial confession, is absolutely not a confession, as the same was made in presence of the police. On these grounds, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that it is a fit case where the appellant deserves to be acquitted. 3. Learned A.P.P. for the State submits that the delay in lodging the First Information Report has been well explained and the dead body of Etwa Soy was identified by his family members on the basis of pant, shirt and sandal which he was wearing. He submits that it is consistent evidence of the prosecution witnesses that Etwa Soy was kidnapped and murdered. He further submits that the dead body was recovered on the confessional statement of the appellant, thus, this appellant does not deserve to be acquitted. He further submits that in fact the confession made by the appellant is an extra judicial confession, which has got evidentiary value. 4. We have gone through the records and have gone through the entire evidence. 5 Fardbeyan of the informant Damu Soy (P.W.1) was recorded by the Sub Inspector Joseph Francis Tirkey (P.W.16), Officer-in-Charge, Chotanagra Police Station on 12.04.2012. Informant gave his fardbeyan in presence of Gramin Munda, Janum Singh Soy and his sister’s son-in-law (Bahan Damad) Prabha Siddu. In his fardbeyan, informant has stated that his cousin Etwa Soy went to Chhotanagra for collecting the wage of Rs.1440/-for digging a pond under NAREGA and was returning to his home and on the way he stayed at Village Bahda to celebrate Maghe festival and was traceless from there. When he did not return, the informant along with other villagers tried to search him but could not get any clue. On 24.03.2012, Munda Mungru Siddu of Village Bahda, through his younger brother Bonj Siddu sent an information that Munda of Kumdi has been called to village Bahda. When he did not return, the informant along with other villagers tried to search him but could not get any clue. On 24.03.2012, Munda Mungru Siddu of Village Bahda, through his younger brother Bonj Siddu sent an information that Munda of Kumdi has been called to village Bahda. Thereafter the informant and Gramin Munda of Kumdi Janum Singh Soy and other seven persons went to Village Bahda and enquired from the appellant who was Munda of Bahda Village regarding his cousin. On this the appellant, who was Munda of Village Bahda, in a threatening tone told that the informant’s brother has been kidnapped by Motka Champia, Lokon Champia, Taungar Gagrai, Goma Gagrai and if the same is reported to the police, repulsive consequences would have to be faced by them. Thus, out of fear, the informant and others went to their respective homes and did not inform to the police about the happening. The informant along with the villagers kept on searching his brother but did not get any clue. He believes that his brother Etwa Soy would have been killed by Mungru Sidu, Motka Champia, Lokon Champia, Taungar Gagrai and Goma Gagrai and they would have concealed his dead body. The informant further stated that father of Etwa Soy had died in 1987, his mother contacted second marriage and the wife Shanti Soy being unaware of cases and litigations, thus he is giving information to the police along with the village Munda. He stated that the delay in giving information has occurred because of fear from the villagers of Bahda. The informant further stated that he believes that his cousin Etwa Soy has been kidnapped by Munda of Village Bahda Mungru Singh (appellant), Motka Champia, Lokon Champia, Taungar Gagrai and Goma Gagrai with an intention to kill him. 6. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan of the informant, Chhotanagra Police Station Case No.4 of 2012 was registered for offences under Sections 364, 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code as against the appellant and others. Investigation of the case was taken up by Joseph Francis Tirkey (P.W.16), Officer-in-Charge, Chhotanagra Police Station and after completion of the same, chargesheet No.09 of 2012 dated 23.08.2012 was filed against the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201, 364, 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Investigation of the case was taken up by Joseph Francis Tirkey (P.W.16), Officer-in-Charge, Chhotanagra Police Station and after completion of the same, chargesheet No.09 of 2012 dated 23.08.2012 was filed against the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201, 364, 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Cognizance of the offence was taken and thereafter by order dated 19.12.2012, the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions. Charge was framed against the appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. In order to prove the charges against the appellant, the prosecution had examined 16 (sixteen) witnesses, namely, P.W.1 Damu Soy (informant), P.W.2 Budhram Soy, P.W.3 Janum Singh Soy, P.W.4 Dr. Vinod Kumar Pandit (Medical Officer), P.W.5 Basu Soy, P.W.6 Saneet Soy, P.W.7 Shanti Soy, P.W.8 Sagar Birua, P.W.9 Jaipal Soy, P.W.10 Prabha Sidiu, P.W.11 Pawan Kumar Mundari, P.W.12 Kundrai Angaria, P.W.13 Dula Soy, P.W.14 Soma Soy, P.W.15 Lagiya Soy and P.W.16 Joseph Francis Tirkey (Investigating Officer). In addition to the oral evidence of above witnesses, the prosecution also produced the following documentary evidence, which were marked as Exhibits: - Ext.1 Signature of P.W.1 over the fardbayan Ext.1/1 Signature of P.W.3 over fardbayan Ext. ½ Signature of P.W.10 over the fardbayan Ext.2 Signature of P.W.3 over the inquest report. Ext.2/1 Signature of P.W.10 over the inquest report Ext.3 Postmortem report Ext.4 Fardbayan Ext.5 Confessional Statement of the accused Ext.6 Inquest Report Ext.7 Formal First Information Report 8. P.W.1 Damu Soy is the informant. He has stated that the occurrence is of the year 2012. It was Maghe festival. The deceased went to Chhotanagra to collect money under Manrega and when he was returning, the appellant along with Doma Gagrai, Togar Gagrai and others took him to their house in Bahda Village, where they offered food and drinks. When the deceased did not return for 4-5 days, this witness and others started searching him and went to Bahda Village, where the appellant told him that Doma Champia, Togar Gagrai and other two persons have kidnapped and murdered the deceased and have concealed his dead body. They also took him to forest and shown him the place where the dead body was concealed. Thereafter this witness had informed the same to the police and the appellant took the police to the place where dead body was kept. They also took him to forest and shown him the place where the dead body was concealed. Thereafter this witness had informed the same to the police and the appellant took the police to the place where dead body was kept. This witness has identified his signature on the fardbayan which was marked as Exhibit 1. This witness also identified the appellant, who was present in Court. In cross examination, this witness has stated that he had not seen the commission of murder. P.W.2 Budhram Soy has stated that the deceased is his nephew and his murder was committed 02 years ago. He stated that the deceased had gone to Chhotanagra, but he did not return, whereafter he was searched, but was not traced out. This witness has further stated that the appellant, who was present in Court, had told that villagers of his village had committed murder of the deceased and at that time the appellant had also revealed the names, but he does not remember. In cross examination, this witness has stated that the police had not recorded his statement. P.W.3 Janum Singh Soy has stated that he knows the deceased, who was his cousin. He was murdered on 03.03.2012. He stated that on that day the deceased had gone to Chhotanagra for collecting the wages of NAREGA work, but he did not return. This witness has stated that they searched him for 3-4 days and when he was not found, missing report was given to the police. He has further stated that after 5-6 days, this appellant, who was present in Court, who was Munda of village Bahda had told him that he along with Lokun, Champia, Tangur, Goma, Motka Champia have killed the deceased and have buried his dead body in the forest. He has further stated that police had come to village Bahda where this witness also had gone, whereafter the appellant shown them the dead body of the deceased. The police recovered the dead body and inquest report was prepared. This witness has identified his signature on the inquest report, which has been marked as Exhibit 2. This witness has also identified his signature over the fardbeyan of Damu Soy (informant) which was recorded by the police, which was marked as Exhibit 1/1. This witness has also identified the appellant who was present in Court. This witness has identified his signature on the inquest report, which has been marked as Exhibit 2. This witness has also identified his signature over the fardbeyan of Damu Soy (informant) which was recorded by the police, which was marked as Exhibit 1/1. This witness has also identified the appellant who was present in Court. In his cross examination, this witness has stated that he came to know after three days that the deceased had gone to Chhotanagra but he did not return. This witness has further stated that Bonj Sidiu informed him after one week that the appellant and others have committed the murder of the deceased. This witness has further stated that the dead body was not identified by face, rather the same was identified through cloths. P.W.4 Dr. Vinod Kumar Pandit is the Medical Officer who had conducted Postmortem Examination on the dead body of the deceased. He found the following ante-mortem injuries on the body: External (i) Multiple fracture of right parital and temporal bone tri-radiate in nature, depressed in ward. (ii) Fracture of 3rd and 4th rib on right side. Internal Heart – Both chamber empty Stomach – Decomposed Time Since death – More than five days but within two weeks. Cause of death – Appears to be due to head injury caused by hard and blunt object. Condition of the body as received: Whole body skeletonized with attached few tags of skin and scalp skin with detachable hairs soiled with soil . This witness has stated that the postmortem report is in his pen and signature and the same has been marked as Exhibit 3. In cross examination this witness has stated that if a person falls from a hill and falls in a ditch, such injuries are possible. P.W.5 Basu Soy has stated he knew the deceased, whose murder has been committed two years ago. He stated that the deceased had gone to Chhotanagra for collecting money, but he did not return. Search was made, but he was not traced out. Thereafter information was given to the police. When police came and nabbed the appellant, he had disclosed about the dead body of the deceased which was near the forest. At that time this witness was also there. This witness identified the appellant, who was present in Court. Search was made, but he was not traced out. Thereafter information was given to the police. When police came and nabbed the appellant, he had disclosed about the dead body of the deceased which was near the forest. At that time this witness was also there. This witness identified the appellant, who was present in Court. In cross examination he has stated that he has no personal knowledge as to who had committed the murder. P.W.6 Sanit Soy has stated that the deceased was his cousin, whose murder was committed two years ago. This witness has further stated that the deceased had gone to Chhotanagra for collecting the money of NAREGA and while returning he stayed in Bahda Village where Maghe festival was being celebrated. When the deceased did not return for two days, this witness went to search him, when the Village Munda told him that he alongwith Lokon Champia, Matka, Toger Gagrai had committed the murder of the deceased and buried his dead body in the pit on the bank of river. This witness has further stated that Munda Mugru Sidiu had shown the dead body. This witness identified the appellant, who was present in the Court. P.W.7 Shanti Soy is the wife of the deceased. She has stated that murder of her husband took place one year ago. She stated that her husband had gone to Chhotanagra and while returning he stayed in village Bahda and he did not return from there. After search he was not found and his dead body was found later. She further stated that the appellant told that deceased has been murdered and his dead body has been buried, but she had not gone to the place where dead body was buried. In cross examination, she has stated that she had not stated before the police that Munda told her that after committing murder of her husband his dead body has been buried. P.W.8 Sagar Birua has stated that he knew the deceased, whose murder was committed one year ago. This witness has stated that the deceased had gone to collect the wage under NAREGA and he returned from Chhotanagra and stayed in Bahda village on the occasion of festival. When the deceased did not return for two-three days, searching him they went to Bahda village. This witness has stated that the deceased had gone to collect the wage under NAREGA and he returned from Chhotanagra and stayed in Bahda village on the occasion of festival. When the deceased did not return for two-three days, searching him they went to Bahda village. This witness has further stated that the appellant had sent information for coming to Bahda with Village Munda of Kundi village, whereafter, they went to Bahda village. There, the appellant told them that Lokon Champia, Motka, Toger Gagrai and Goma have committed the murder of the deceased and dead body of the deceased was buried, which the appellant had shown. This witness has identified the appellant, who was present in Court. In cross examination, this witness has stated that the deceased had gone to Bahda Village and he had talked with him through phone. P.W.9 Jaipal Soy has stated that the deceased was his cousin, whose murder was committed one year ago. He stated that Patras Sundi had informed him whereafter he went to Bahda. He stated that the deceased had gone to Chhotanagra and thereafter he became traceless. P.W.10 Prabha Sidiu has stated that the deceased was his brother-in-law, who was traceless since 4th March, 2012. This witness has further stated that the deceased had gone to Chhotanagra for collecting wage under NAREGA. They searched him, but he could not be traced. After some days, Munda of Kundli village informed them that Munda of Bahda, Mugru Sidiu (appellant) want to inform about the deceased. When they went there, appellant told them that Janum Singh Munda has committed wrong. Janum Singh did not speak anything then they asked from the appellant, who told this witness that he has lodged false case. On this, this witness told that his brother-in-law is missing that is why case has been lodged. The appellant told that he will tell after the meeting in the evening. This witness further stated that on the next day the appellant called them, but out of fear they did not go. He further stated that on the third day they went to the house of the appellant. He stated that he was accompanied by Janum Singh, Saneet Soy, Pawan Mundari, Khadrai Jarika. The appellant told them that Loko Champia, Togan Gagrai, Motka Champia and Goma Gagrai have kidnapped the deceased. He further stated that on the third day they went to the house of the appellant. He stated that he was accompanied by Janum Singh, Saneet Soy, Pawan Mundari, Khadrai Jarika. The appellant told them that Loko Champia, Togan Gagrai, Motka Champia and Goma Gagrai have kidnapped the deceased. He also asked to take a decision there itself and if informed to police, the consequences would be repulsive. Thereafter they returned out of fear. He stated that after some days, they informed the entire fact to the police. Police came to the village and took them to the forest and the appellant told the place where dead body of the deceased was kept. The police recovered the dead body and inquest report was prepared. This witness has identified his signature on the inquest report, which has been marked as Exhibit 2/1. This witness has also identified his signature on the fardbeyan of Damu Soy (P.W.1/ Informant) recorded by the police, which was marked as Exhibit 1/2. This witness also identified the appellant, who was present in Court. In cross examination this witness has stated that after seeing skeleton he could not identify, but he could identify from cloth and the sleeper. He has further stated that he cannot say that whether police had prepared the seizure list of cloth and sleeper or not. P.W.11 Pawan Kumar Mundari has stated that the occurrence took place in 2012 and he was called by Janum Singh Soy saying that his brother is missing. They went to search, but his brother was not traced. P.W.12 Kundrai Angaria has stated that the deceased was his brother in relation, whose murder was committed two years ago. He stated that on the date of occurrence, he and the deceased had gone to Chhotanagra for collecting wage under NAREGA. The deceased had gone to Chhotanagra by bicycle and he went there on foot. After collecting money he returned to his village by bus and the deceased was coming by bicycle. On the next day, deceased had called him over phone and had told that he stayed at night in Titlighat in the house of his relation and he is returning, but he did not return to the village. Thereafter he called him, but his phone did not connect. This witness has further stated that they searched the deceased for two-three days, but they could not trace him. Thereafter he called him, but his phone did not connect. This witness has further stated that they searched the deceased for two-three days, but they could not trace him. After some days village Munda Janum Singh Soy called them and told about an information from Bahda Village that murder of the deceased has been committed. This witness has further stated that Janum Singh and other villagers went to the appellant, who told that Motka, Goma, Togel and one other person, whose name he is not recalling, have committing murder of the deceased. This witness has further stated that Janum Singh called them after about two months, when they went to police and thereafter alongwith the police to the house of the appellant. They along with the police and the appellant went to the forest where the appellant took out the dead body of the deceased from the earth. In cross examination, this witness stated that the police did not record his statement. He further stated that the dead body had been decomposed and the same was not in a position to be identified. P.W.13 Dula Soy has stated that the occurrence took place one year ago. The dead body of the deceased was buried in the forest of Bahda Village. Thereafter he along with villagers of Kundi and police went there. This witness has further stated that the appellant was present there, who took out the dead body of the deceased from the earth. In cross examination, this witness has stated that the police did not inquire from him. P.W.14 Soma Soy has stated that the deceased was son of his younger brother, who had gone to Chhotanagra for collecting the wages under NAREGA on 03.03.2012, but he did not return to his house. They searched him, but he was not traced out. This witness has further stated that he had gone Bahda village to see the dead body of the deceased on 27.05.2012 and police was present there and the appellant and other persons of that village were also present. This witness has further stated that the appellant took out the dead body of the deceased from the earth and he identified the dead body of the deceased. In cross examination, this witness has stated that dead body had decomposed and he had identified by cloth but that type of cloth are available in the market. This witness has further stated that the appellant took out the dead body of the deceased from the earth and he identified the dead body of the deceased. In cross examination, this witness has stated that dead body had decomposed and he had identified by cloth but that type of cloth are available in the market. Shoes was also there. He has stated that the police had not recorded his statement P.W.15 Lagia Soy has stated that he knew the deceased, whose murder was committed two years ago. This witness has stated that he had gone to Bahda village to see the dead body of the deceased. Police took them where dead body was buried. Appellant took out the dead body of the deceased from the earth. In cross examination, this witness has stated that the police did not record his statement. P.W.16 Joseph Fransis Tirkey is the Investigating Officer of this case. He stated that on 12.04.2012 while he was posted as Officer-in-Charge of Chhotanagra Police Station, on the fardbayan of informant Damu Soy he had registered Chhotanagra Police Station Case No.04 of 2012 under Sections 364, 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code and took the charge of investigation. He stated that the fardbayan was in his writing and signature. Damu Soy had also put his signature over the same along with Janum Singh Soy and Prabha Sidiu. He stated that the endorsement on the fardbayan is in his pen and signature and fardbayan has been marked as Exhibit 4. This witness has stated that it is said by the informant and villagers that deceased was seen singing and dancing at late night on the occasion of Maghe festival and he was traceless from there. This witness has also described the boundary of the place of occurrence. He also stated about the recording of statement of witnesses by him. He also stated about arrest of the appellant and recording of his confessional statement. He stated that the confessional statement of the appellant is in his writing and signature and the appellant has also put his signature over the same. Confessional statement has been marked as Exhibit 5. He stated that on the basis of confessional statement of the appellant, dead body of the deceased was recovered from the forest. This witness has also given description of the second place of occurrence. Confessional statement has been marked as Exhibit 5. He stated that on the basis of confessional statement of the appellant, dead body of the deceased was recovered from the forest. This witness has also given description of the second place of occurrence. He has further stated that as per the information of the appellant, he came on the land of father of Uri Sidiu and took out the dead body from the earth with the help of present witnesses and villagers. It was a skeleton with pant, shirt and sandal. This witness has further stated that Lagia Soy, younger brother of the deceased, Dula Soy, Budhram Soy, Soma Soy, Munda Janum Singh Soy and Prabha Sidiu identified that pant, shirt and sandal of the deceased. This witness has stated that the third place of occurrence is situated at solitary place and the same is surrounded with forest and shrub. This witness has given the description of the boundary of the third place of occurrence. This witness has further stated that he had prepared the inquest report and the same is in his writing and signature and witnesses Prabha Sidiu and Janum Singh Soy have also put their signature over the same and the same has been marked as Exhibit 6. This witness has further stated that the formal First Information Report is in his writing and signature and the same has been marked Exhibit 7. This witness has further stated that he sent the dead body of the deceased to Sadar Hospital, Chaibasa for postmortem and he received supervision note of his senior officer. He submitted chargesheet against the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 364, 379, 302, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. In cross examination, he has stated that he did not prepare seizure list of sandal, shirt and pant of the deceased. 9. After closure of the evidence, the statement of this appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appellant did not chose to adduce any evidence in his defence. 10. The Trial Court, after hearing the arguments of the parties and after going through the evidence, by Judgment of Conviction dated 19th December, 2016 and Order of Sentence dated 22nd December, 2016, has held the appellant guilty and convicted him for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201, 364, 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code and has sentenced him. 10. The Trial Court, after hearing the arguments of the parties and after going through the evidence, by Judgment of Conviction dated 19th December, 2016 and Order of Sentence dated 22nd December, 2016, has held the appellant guilty and convicted him for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201, 364, 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code and has sentenced him. 11. Challenging the aforesaid conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 12. We have gone through the evidence and the entire records. 13. From the records, we find that the First Information Report has been lodged after a delay of 1 (one) month 8 (eight) days. The deceased Etwa Soy went missing on 04.03.2012, but, no missing report was lodged at any police station. The entire prosecution case is based on the confessional statement of the appellant and statement of hear-say witnesses. There is no eye witness in this case. The investigation also suffers from lacunas and latches, inasmuch as the skeleton which was recovered, was not scientifically verified to come to a concrete finding that the same was of the deceased Etwa Soy. Further, the pant, shirt and sandal of the deceased were neither seized, nor any seizure list was prepared for those materials nor the same was produced before the Court. The investigating officer has not examined even a single witness from the village Bahda as all the witnesses examined in this case are either relatives of the deceased or villagers of village Kumdi. 14. In this case, the prosecution witnesses, in their evidence before the Court have stated that the deceased went to Chhotanagra to collect the wages under NAREGA, but he did not return and the informant and other witnesses had searched the deceased for three-four days, but he could not be traced. Thereafter Janum Singh Soy, village Munda of Kumdi Village is said to have received a message through the younger brother of the appellant, asking him along with the villagers of Kumdi Village to come to Bahda Village. Further it is stated that the appellant told them that he alongwith Lokon Champia, Tangur, Goma, Motka Champia have committed the murder of the deceased Etwa Soy and buried his dead body in the forest. Further it is stated that the appellant told them that he alongwith Lokon Champia, Tangur, Goma, Motka Champia have committed the murder of the deceased Etwa Soy and buried his dead body in the forest. Thereafter after more than one month, missing report of the deceased was lodged with the police, whereafter the police came to Bahda Village where some of the witnesses were also stated to be present and in their presence the appellant went to the forest and showed and took out the dead body of the deceased. The body of the deceased was skeleton with pant, shirt and sandal. The witnesses identified the skeleton to be of the deceased on the basis of his pant, shirt and sandal. Thereafter the confessional statement of the appellant is stated to have been recorded by the police, on the basis of which the skeleton was recovered. Thus, we find that there is nothing in their evidence to suggest completion of the chain of circumstances leading to the guilt of the appellant nor they have stated about the motive of the accused in committing the crime. 15. In a case involving offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, when there is only circumstantial evidence and there is no eye witness to the occurrence, motive is relevant and is necessarily required to be proved by the prosecution. In this case we find that none of the witnesses have stated or indicated about any dispute or enmity between the accused person and the deceased. The prosecution has failed to prove any motive behind the occurrence. As there is no direct evidence, prosecution case is completely based on circumstantial evidence. In such situation, prosecution should have come up with some motive behind the occurrence. 16. Further, from the record, we gather that surprisingly, the apparels and other belongings of the deceased, on the basis of which the dead body of the deceased was identified, were neither seized nor even produced before the Trial Court for identification. 17. Thus, we find that the prosecution has miserably failed to complete the chain of circumstances so as to prove the guilt of the appellant. The only material is the confessional statement of the appellant before the police, on the basis of which the dead body of the deceased was recovered. Further, the confessional statement of the appellant was not also properly proved by the prosecution. The only material is the confessional statement of the appellant before the police, on the basis of which the dead body of the deceased was recovered. Further, the confessional statement of the appellant was not also properly proved by the prosecution. 18. Thus, we are inclined to hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt of the appellant by completing the chain of circumstances. There has been latches and lacunas on the part of the prosecution, for which benefit of doubt should go in favour of the appellant. Thus, giving benefit of doubt, we are inclined to allow this appeal. The impugned Judgment of Conviction dated 19th December, 2016 and Order of Sentence dated 22nd December, 2016 passed by the Additional Session Judge-I, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No.01 of 2013 are hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges against him. He is directed to be released from custody forthwith if not wanted in any other case. 19. This appeal is, accordingly, allowed. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. 20. Let the Trial Court Records be transmitted to the Court concerned along with a copy of this judgment.