JUDGMENT : Ananda Sen, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.07.2017 passed by Sri Om Prakash Pandey No. 1, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Pakur in Sessions Case No. 01 of 2014, arising out of Littipara P.S. Case No. 91/2013, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been punished to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1,00,000/- for committing the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant- convict submitted that the witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution, thus the impugned judgment is not sustainable in eyes of law. He further submitted that there is no eye witness to the occurrence and all the prosecution witnesses are hearsay witnesses who in fact have given different statements regarding weapons which were used in assaulting the deceased. Those statements have not been corroborated by the medical evidence. He further submitted that the blood smeared seized weapons have not been produced before the Court, therefore the prosecution has failed to prove its case against this appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. He also submitted that it is alleged that the Investigating Officer seized two blood smeared weapons, but the said blood smeared weapons have not been examined by the FSL. It is his case that the prosecution has to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt, but in this case the prosecution has failed, thus the appellant needs to be acquitted. . 3. Counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the doctor has proved the injuries and the Investigating Officer has also proved the place of occurrence and on the basis of the confessional statement of accused, both weapons, used in this crime, i.e. dab and sabbal were recovered by the police, therefore, the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt against this appellant. He further submitted that P.W.5 (Shivadhan Marandi) and P.W. 8 (Mirkhu Murmu) have clearly deposed that the deceased was demanding his share of the compensation amount, given by the Government on acquisition of their land, from this appellant, who kept all the money, therefore there was serious dispute between the appellant and the deceased, for which, the offence was committed. The motive of the occurrence thus stands proved. The motive of the occurrence thus stands proved. He also stated that P.W. 10 (Mongla Marandi) has also clearly deposed that a quarrel had taken place between the accused and the deceased at 12:00 O' clock on the date of occurrence. He lastly submitted that there is no ground to acquit the appellant, thus he prayed that the judgment is fit to be upheld. 4. In this appeal, the appellant has been charged and convicted under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case is based upon the fardbeyan of Chowkidar, namely, Pagan Marandi, recorded by the Officer-in-Charge of Littipara Police Station on 29.09.2013 that he heard hue and cry at Manjhitola, where some quarrel took place between this appellant- Sonaram Marnadi and Motilal Marandi ( the deceased and full brother of this appellant) for money and this appellant killed him giving blows with Dab and Sabbal and run away. He stated that thereafter he went to the place and occurrence and saw cut injuries on neck and head of the deceased, caused with Dab and Sabbal and blood was oozing out and the deceased was lying dead. The villagers told that at Dumka -Sahebganj Road, land of these three brothers was acquired by the Government and for that compensation was given by the Government but all the money was received by Sonaram Marandi and he did not give due share of anyone, for which, the quarrel took place. In the meantime, Sonaram Marandi took out Dab and Sabbal and assaulted on the neck and head of the deceased, due to which he died on spot. 5. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan, Littipara P.S. Case No. 91 of 2013 dated 29.9.2013 was registered under Section 302 IPC against this appellant. Subsequently, the matter was taken up for investigation and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the appellant and, accordingly, cognizance of the offence was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. 6. To prove the prosecution case, the prosecution has produced 12 witnesses, who are P.W. 1 Barsan Marandi, P.W.2- Rajesh Hembrom, P.W. 3- Shashi Kewat, P.W.4- Pagan Soren, P.W.5- Shivdhan Marnadi, P.W. 6- Parmeshwar Marnadi, P.W.7- Mirkhu Murmu, P.W.8- Garbhu Hansda, P.W.9- Dr. Lalit Kumar Bhagat, P.W. 10- Mongla Marnadi, P.W. 11- Pagan Marandi and P.W. 12- Teslal Ram. 6. To prove the prosecution case, the prosecution has produced 12 witnesses, who are P.W. 1 Barsan Marandi, P.W.2- Rajesh Hembrom, P.W. 3- Shashi Kewat, P.W.4- Pagan Soren, P.W.5- Shivdhan Marnadi, P.W. 6- Parmeshwar Marnadi, P.W.7- Mirkhu Murmu, P.W.8- Garbhu Hansda, P.W.9- Dr. Lalit Kumar Bhagat, P.W. 10- Mongla Marnadi, P.W. 11- Pagan Marandi and P.W. 12- Teslal Ram. P.W.1, Barsan Marandi , This witness has deposed that when the occurrence took place, he was at home and at that time, this appellant came to him and told that he cut the neck of his brother giving blows with Kaida. Thereafter, he went to the place of occurrence and saw the dead body of the deceased. In cross-examination, he deposed that he does not know whether at the time of occurrence the deceased's wife was there or not. P.W.2- Rajesh Hembrom deposed that he was, at the time of occurrence, the driver of the vehicle of the Officer-in-Charge. On the date of occurrence, when he reached at Chowk, this appellant told him to make a call to the police station, thereafter he gave his mobile to him and he gave the same to his elder brother i.e. the deceased, who threw his mobile. Thereafter Sonaram took his brother Motilal to his home and at that time he was having a Dab. He deposed that from there he went to the police station. When he was going to Littipara with Officer-in-Charge and police personnel, driving the vehicle, then a boy stopped the vehicle at Littipara Chowk and told them that some occurrence has taken place in the village and when they reached at the house of Motilal Marnadi they saw that in the varandah of the house, the dead body of the deceased was lying. The Officer-in- charge prepared the inquest report and he has put his signature, which has been marked as Ext.-1. The office-in-charge also seized a sabbal and a dab and prepared the seizure list upon which he put his signature, which has been marked as Ext.2. During cross-examination, he deposed that he does not remember where the police took his singaute on the papers or not. P.W.3- Shashi Kewat a co-villager who deposed that when the police was at the house of Sonaram then he also reached there and saw that dead body of the deceased is lying by the side of his house. During cross-examination, he deposed that he does not remember where the police took his singaute on the papers or not. P.W.3- Shashi Kewat a co-villager who deposed that when the police was at the house of Sonaram then he also reached there and saw that dead body of the deceased is lying by the side of his house. He came to know that Sonaram killed the deceased. The police took his signature and he identified his signature on the carbon copy of inquest report, which was marked as Ext.1/1 and at seizure list, marked as Ext.-2/1. In his cross- examination, he stated that he signed on a blank paper on instruction of the police. P.W.4- Pagan Soren, This witness has been declared hostile. P.W.5- Shivdhan Marnadi (the son of the deceased) deposed that the occurrence took place on 29.9.2013 at 1:30 p.m, when he was at home. He deposed that the Government acquired the land of all three brothers and gave the compensation amount, but this appellant took all the amount. His father was demanding his share, due to that this appellant killed his father. During cross-examination, he deposed that he did not see the occurrence. P.W.6- Parmeshwar Marandi deposed that the occurrence took place four years ago at 2-2:30 P.M. He deposed that the measurement of the land was going on at that time and he was present there when the police reached the village. He deposed that Chowkidar came to him and told that some incident took place at his village. Thereafter, he reached at the place of occurrence where he saw the deceased lying dead. He also saw that his neck was cut. He further deposed that Sonaram went to the police station and confessed his guilt then he came to know that the neck of the deceased was cut by him. P.W.7- Mirkhu Murmu (the wife of the deceased) deposed that the government had acquired the land for construction of road and had given the compensation, which was kept by Sonaram i.e. this appellant. Her husband was demanding money, for which, the quarrel took place. Thereafter, her husband slept at the cot then Sonaram took out a sickle from his house and gave blow on the neck of her husband. He also assaulted the deceased with sabbal on his head. Thereafter, he ran away closing the door and her husband died on the sport. Her husband was demanding money, for which, the quarrel took place. Thereafter, her husband slept at the cot then Sonaram took out a sickle from his house and gave blow on the neck of her husband. He also assaulted the deceased with sabbal on his head. Thereafter, he ran away closing the door and her husband died on the sport. During cross- examination, she deposed that before she reached her matrimonial home, her husband was killed. P.W.8- Garbhu Hansda deposed that he does not know anything about the occurrence and he has been declared hostile. P.W.9- Dr. Lalit Kumar Bhagat who deposed that he conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and he has proved the postmortem report prepared by him (Ext. 3). This witness has found the following injuries on the person of the deceased:- (a) On external examination: (i) rigor mortis present in the four limbs. (ii) one incised wound of whole neck from back of neck to front of neck- 10”x4” x bone deep. (b) On dissection (i) head- no injury of brain. (ii) neck- one incised would of whole neck from back of neck to front to neck 10”x4” X bone deep. (iii) Thorax- no injury of lung and heart. (iv) Abdomen- no injury on stomach, kidney, liver, spleen and bladder. The doctor opined that the cause of death is haemorrhage and shock, caused by injury of neck by sharp cutting weapon. P.W.10- Mongla Marandi deposed that the occurrence took place three years ago when he was not present at the place of occurrence. In cross-examination, he deposed that his wife told that this appellant killed the deceased giving blows with Gainta and sabbal. P.W.11- Pagan Marandi deposed that this case has been filed by him and he has given his thumb impression on the fardbeyan. When he came to know that Motilal Marandi was lying dead in his house, then he went there and saw that his neck was cut. He does not know how he died. This witness has been declared hostile. During cross-examination, he deposed that the police reached the place of occurrence, but he did not seize any article from the place of occurrence where the deceased was lying dead. He does not know how he died. This witness has been declared hostile. During cross-examination, he deposed that the police reached the place of occurrence, but he did not seize any article from the place of occurrence where the deceased was lying dead. P.W.12- Tesla Ram deposed that at the time of occurrence, he was posted at Littipara Police Station as Officer-in of the police station and at about 13:30 on 29.9.13 he heard a rumour that a man of village Manjhitola has been killed by his own brother by giving blows with Dab and sabbal. He then registering a sanha and departed for the village. He recorded the statement of Chowkidar- Pagan Marandi. This witness has proved the fardbeyan, which has been marked as Ext.-4. This witness has also proved the formal FIR, marked as Ext.-6. Thereafter, he took the charge of investigation and recorded the re-statement of the informant. He prepared the inquest report in presence of independent witnesses and the carbon copy of the inquest report is marked as Ext.-7. He also recorded the statement of other witnesses. He further deposed that he raided the house of Sonaram Marandi and arrested him from there. He recorded the confessional statement of accused, which has been marked as Ext.- 8. On the basis of confessional statement of the accused, he recovered an iron dab that was smeared with blood from the bush and he prepared the seizure list, which has been marked as Ext.-9. 7. The prosecution has also proved and exhibited several documents to substantiate its case. Those are as follows:- Exhibit-1 is signature of P.W.-2 on Carbon copy of inquest report, Exhibit-1/1 is signature of P.W.2 on carbon copy of inquest report, Exhibit-2 is signature of P.W.-2 on seizure list. Exhibit-2/1 is signature of P.W.-2 on seizure list, Exhibit-3 is P.M. report, Exhibit-4 is fardbeyan, Exhibit-5 is Registration on fardbeyan Exhibit-6 is Formal F.I.R. Exhibit-7 is inquest report, Exhibit-8 is Confessional statement of accused, Exhibit-9 is seizure list. 8. After closure of prosecution evidence, the statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, in which he has denied the accusation and claimed himself to be innocent. 9. 8. After closure of prosecution evidence, the statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, in which he has denied the accusation and claimed himself to be innocent. 9. The trial court after hearing both the parties and appreciating the evidences, held the appellant guilty for committing the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.1,00,000/-. 10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the evidences of this case, we find that the death is homicidal. Though none of the witnesses have stated that they have seen the murder, the evidence of the Doctor who conducted the postmortem of the deceased proves the death as homicidal. There was one incised wound on whole neck from back of neck to front of neck- 10” x 4” x bone deep. Doctor opined that the cause of death is haemorrhage and shock, caused by injury of neck by sharp cutting weapon. This evidence is sufficient to prove that the death of deceased was homicidal. 11. Now the question, which would fall for our consideration is that who is the person, who has committed the murder, what are the circumstances against him and whether the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt or not. It is the case of the prosecution that this appellant had committed the murder of the deceased, who is none, but his own brother and the motive is also set-forth by the prosecution. As per the prosecution, since this appellant had usurped the entire compensation amount, in lieu of acquisition of land, and was not paying the share of the brothers and of the deceased, he confronted him and demanded his share and on such demand a quarrel had taken place between them and when the deceased went to sleep, this appellant came and slit his throat by sickle and assaulted on the head of the deceased by sabal, resulting in death of the deceased. Though, we find that this is the prosecution case, but none of the witnesses are the eye witnesses to the said occurrence. The son of the deceased though narrated the prosecution case, but stated that he did not see the occurrence. Though, we find that this is the prosecution case, but none of the witnesses are the eye witnesses to the said occurrence. The son of the deceased though narrated the prosecution case, but stated that he did not see the occurrence. He stated that he stayed with his mother at his maternal grand-mother's house and he had seen the dead body of his father after he died. From his evidence, it is clear that he was not residing at the place of occurrence and he reached there on receiving information about his father's death. The wife of the deceased (P.W.-7) also narrated that when she reached the place of occurrence, her husband had already died. The other witnesses did not say that they have seen the occurrence. 12. In absence of any eye witness, we have to see the circumstances, which are against this appellant. One of the circumstances, which is against this appellant is the extra-judicial confession before P.W.-1. He stated that he was in his house when this appellant came and informed him that he had committed the murder of his brother by slitting his neck. He further stated that he does not know why he killed his brother. He also stated that this appellant is not his friend. In our opinion, this statement cannot be taken to be an extra-judicial confession as the same must be made before a person of confidence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Moorthy vs State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1027 in paragraph 6 has held as under; 6. Firstly, we will deal with the prosecution case about the extra- judicial confession. As regards extra-judicial confession, the law has been laid down by this Court in the case of Pawan Kuma r Chourasia v. State of Bihar . In paragraph 5 it is held thus: “5. As far as extra-judicial confession is concerned, the law is well settled. Generally, it is a weak piece of evidence. However, a conviction can be sustained on the basis of extra-judicial confession provided that the confession is proved to be voluntary and truthful. It should be free of any inducement. The evidentiary value of such confession also depends on the person to whom it is made. Generally, it is a weak piece of evidence. However, a conviction can be sustained on the basis of extra-judicial confession provided that the confession is proved to be voluntary and truthful. It should be free of any inducement. The evidentiary value of such confession also depends on the person to whom it is made. Going by the natural course of human conduct, normally, a person would confide about a crime committed by him only with such a person in whom he has implicit faith. Normally, a person would not make a confession to someone who is totally a stranger to him. Moreover, the Court has to be satisfied with the reliability of the confession keeping in view the circumstances in which it is made. As a matter of rule, corroboration is not required. However, if an extra-judicial confession is corroborated by other evidence on record, it acquires more credibility.” (emphasis added) 13. Thus, considering this judgment and the evidence of P.W.-1, we find that he was not a friend of this appellant and there is nothing to suggest that this appellant has implicit faith upon him. Further, this is a very weak piece of evidence. On the basis of this sole evidence, it will not be proper for us to convict the appellant. Another circumstances is that this appellant and the deceased were seen together on road by P.W.-2 and this appellant was having a dab (a sharp cutting weapon) in his hand. The deceased told to P.W.-2 that he wants his phone to talk to someone. When P.W.-2 handed over the phone to the appellant, the appellant threw the phone. Thereafter, the deceased returned. This circumstances is also not strong enough to come to a conclusion that this appellant murdered the deceased. The other important circumstance, which has been considered by the Trial Court is the disclosure statement of the appellant, based on which, the murder weapon was recovered. The Office-in-Charge, who is P.W.-12 in paragraph 2 of his evidence has stated that he arrested this appellant and recorded his confessional statement and the entire confessional statement was marked as Exhibit. He further stated that as per the confessional statement a dab (sharp cutting weapon), smeared with blood and one iron rod (3 feet) also smeared with blood were recovered. 14. Now we have to decide as to whether the said confession is at all admissible or not. He further stated that as per the confessional statement a dab (sharp cutting weapon), smeared with blood and one iron rod (3 feet) also smeared with blood were recovered. 14. Now we have to decide as to whether the said confession is at all admissible or not. The Hon'be Supreme Court in the case of Bab u Sahebagounda Rudragoudar and Others vs. State of Karnataka , reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 561 has considered the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in respect of Section 27 of the Evidence Act and in the aforesaid judgment has held that the statement of accused recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is basically a memorandum of confession of the accused recorded by the I.O. during interrogation. The confession part of such statement is inadmissible and only the part which lead to discovery of fact is admissible in evidence. The Hon'be Supreme Court in paragraph of 60 of the aforesaid judgment as held that when the Investigating Officer steps into the witness box for proving such disclosure statement, he would be required to narrate what the accused stated to him. By referring other judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 65 has held that mere exhibiting of memorandum prepared by the I.O. during investigation cannot tantamount to proof of its contents. The Investigating Officer would be required to narrate the sequence of events which transpired leading to recording of the disclosure statement. 15. After going through the evidence of I.O., in this case, we find that it is only the memorandum, which was exhibited by the I.O. and the witness did not narrate the sequence of events which transpired leading to the recording of the disclosure statement. The I.O. also did not give description of all conversation which has transpired between him and the accused. Further, the I.O. stated that on the basis of the disclosure murder weapons were recovered, did not state that on the pointing of this appellant, it was recovered. Thus, in view of para 65 of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the contents of the memorandum prepared by the I.O., has not been proved. Thus, the disclosure statement cannot be read in evidence and the recovery is non est in the eyes of law. It is necessary to quote paras 65 and 66 of the aforesaid judgment, which read as under:- “65. Thus, the disclosure statement cannot be read in evidence and the recovery is non est in the eyes of law. It is necessary to quote paras 65 and 66 of the aforesaid judgment, which read as under:- “65. Similar view was taken by this Court in the case of Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti v. State of Utta r Pradesh , wherein this Court held that mere exhibiting of memorandum prepared by the Investigating Officer during investigation cannot tantamount to proof of its contents. While testifying on oath, the Investigating Officer would be required to narrate the sequence of events which transpired leading to the recording of the disclosure statement. 66. If we peruse the extracted part of the evidence of the Investigating Officer (PW-27) (reproduced supra), in the backdrop of the above exposition of law laid down by this Court, the interrogation memos of the accused A-2(Exhibit P-15) and A-1 (Exhibit P-16), it is clear that the Investigating Officer(PW-27) gave no description at all of the conversation which had transpired between himself and the accused which was recorded in the disclosure statements. Thus, these disclosure statements cannot be read in evidence and the recoveries made in furtherance thereof are non est in the eyes of law.” 16. It is the consistent case of the prosecution that the deceased was assaulted by sharp cutting weapon (dab) and on head by iron rod, but the doctor found cut injury on the neck. However, from the medical evidence and the postmortem report, we do not find any injury on the head of the deceased. The prosecution case to that effect that the deceased was assaulted on his head by sabal is falsified. The sabal cannot be termed as the murder-weapon. 17. Further from the evidence, we find that neither the blood stained dab nor the iron rod (sabal) were sent for forensic examination. Whether the blood which was smeared on these two materials belongs to human or not, has also not been established. 18. The prosecution has imputed the motive for the murder. As per the prosecution, since the entire amount of compensation in lieu of acquisition of ancestral land was usurped by the appellant, there was quarrel between the brothers. The deceased went to ask for his share, which resulted in altercation and the death of the deceased had occurred. 18. The prosecution has imputed the motive for the murder. As per the prosecution, since the entire amount of compensation in lieu of acquisition of ancestral land was usurped by the appellant, there was quarrel between the brothers. The deceased went to ask for his share, which resulted in altercation and the death of the deceased had occurred. There is no document on record to suggest that the land was at all acquired or the land which was acquired belongs to the ancestor of this appellant and the appellant has received all compensation amount. It is only the witnesses who made oral statements in this regard. 19. Further from the evidence of the I.O., we find that the deceased died in his own house, whereas the appellant was living in a separate house as there was separation between them. From the evidence of the I.O., we further find that there were other brothers of the deceased. 20. Considering the aforesaid evidence, we find that the prosecution has not been able to prove the involvement of this appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. The prosecution has not been able to prove the chain of circumstances beyond all reasonable doubt. When the chain of circumstances is not completely proved by the prosecution, it is not proper to convict the appellant. Thus this appeal stands allowed by giving benefit of doubt to the appellant. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.07.2017 passed by Sri Om Prakash Pandey No. 1, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Pakur in Sessions Case No. 01 of 2014 are hereby set aside. 21. This Court directs the above named appellant to be released forthwith from custody, if not required in any other case. 22. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with a copy of this judgment. 23. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is also disposed of.