JUDGMENT : BIBEK CHAUDHURI, J. 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the appellant and the learned Government Advocate. 2. This is an appeal against an order of conviction and sentence under Sections 302/376 of the I.P.C. and Section 5(i)/6 of the POCSO Act. 3. POCSO Case No.31 of 2016 was registered on the basis of the charge sheet filed by the police in connection with Brahampur P.S. Case No.232 of 2016 dated 10.10.2016 under Sections 302, 201, 376 of the I.P.C. and Section 5(i)/6 of the POCSO Act, which was initiated on the basis of a statement made by one Rita Devi of Village Kuwavan within police station Brahampur, alleging inter alia that on 10.10.2016 at about 06:00 A.M. her minor daughter aged about 14 years (name of the victim is not disclosed in the body of the judgment and she is described as the deceased hereinbelow) was going to the house of one Vijay Bahadur Singh to collect milk as of daily routine. The said girl, however, did not return with milk from the house of Vijay Bahadur for long. The informant conducted a search for her daughter and came to know from the milkman that she had not arrived to his house to collect milk on the fateful date of occurrence. She found the appellant outside her home, the appellant was visibly disturbed and did not respond to enquiries about her daughter. While search, the informant found stain of blood on a lane near one Sirkat Singh’s house, in the vicinity of that place there were houses of one Yogendra on the North, Hare Kisan on South Raghunath Singh in front of the lane. The informant also found the milk can which the victim girl was carrying laying in a drain. Seeing this, she could understand that some ominous was committed upon her daughter. She conducted further search and found her daughter laying on a plot of land adjacent to the house of Yogendra Singh with bleeding injury on his head. She immediately took her daughter with the help of the local villagers to a village doctor (qua), named, Raghunath Prasad. The doctor examined her medically and declared her death. 4. She conducted further search and found her daughter laying on a plot of land adjacent to the house of Yogendra Singh with bleeding injury on his head. She immediately took her daughter with the help of the local villagers to a village doctor (qua), named, Raghunath Prasad. The doctor examined her medically and declared her death. 4. On the basis of the statement made by the informant Brahampur P.S. Case No. 232 of 2016 dated 10.10.2016 under Sections 302/201 IPC was registered and investigation of the case was taken up, during investigation the Investigating Officer found that the victim was subjected to penetrative sexual assault. 5. On completion of investigation, police submitted charge sheet under section 302, 376 IPC and Section 5(i)/6 of the POCSO Act. 6. Since, the offence under the POCSO Act is exclusively triable by the learned Special Judge, the case was committed to the learned Special Judge, 1 st Court at Buxar. 7. During investigation, police arrested appellant-Anup Singh and submitted charge-sheet against him. The accused faced trial under the charge of Sections 302, 201, 376 of the I.P.C. and Section 5(i)/6 of the POCSO Act. 8. On conclusion of Trial, the appellant was convicted under Sections 302, 376 of the I.P.C. as well as Section 5(i)/6 of the POCSO Act and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.50,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC; rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with fine of Rs.20,000/- for the offence under Section 376 IPC read with Section 5(i)/6 of the POCSO Act. 9. By filing the instant appeal, the accused/convict has assailed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Special Judge, 1 st Court at Buxar. 10. During trial, prosecution examined the following witnesses:- (i) PW1 - Smt. Rita Devi - Informant (ii) PW2 - Harinath Yadav - Co-villager (iii) PW3 - Jai Ram Singh - co-villager (iv) PW4 - Vivek Kumar Singh – co-villager and son of PW3 (v) PW5 - Dr. Bhupendra Nath Singh – Autopsy Surgeon. (vi) PW6 - Dr. Madhu Singh – Medical Officer, who examined the deceased to ascertain as to whether she was subjected to sexual assault or not. (vii) PW7 – Vinay Kumar – recorded the statement of PW1- Smt. Rita Devi. (viii) PW-8 - Dr. Uday Shankar Tripathi – Medically examined the appellant. Bhupendra Nath Singh – Autopsy Surgeon. (vi) PW6 - Dr. Madhu Singh – Medical Officer, who examined the deceased to ascertain as to whether she was subjected to sexual assault or not. (vii) PW7 – Vinay Kumar – recorded the statement of PW1- Smt. Rita Devi. (viii) PW-8 - Dr. Uday Shankar Tripathi – Medically examined the appellant. (ix) PW9 – Ravishankar Rai – produced the seized materials of the deceased during trial of the case. (x) PW10 - Kamlesh Singh – A witness to the seizure (xi) PW11 - Vijay Bahadur Singh – one of the signatories of the inquest report of the deceased. 11. The following documents were exhibited during trial:- (i) Exhibit-1 – Postmortem report (ii) Exhibit-1/1 – Signature of the autopsy surgeon on the postmortem report (iii) Exhibit-2 – Formal F.I.R. (iv) Exhibit-3 – ---- in the formal FIR (v) Exhibit-3/1 – written report and signature (vi) Exhibit-3/2 – written report and signature (vii) Exhibit-4 - Inquest report (carbon copy) (viii) Exhibit-5 – Seizure list (ix) Exhibit-5/1 – Signature on the seizure list (x) Exhibit-6 – Injury report of the appellant. 12. The slippers of the deceased which were seized from the place of occurrence was marked as Material Exhibit-M during trial. 13. The learned trial court held that since there is no eye-witness of the occurrence, final decision of the case was dependent upon circumstantial evidence on appreciation and examination of evidence on record. The learned trial judge found that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn was fully established in the instant case in such a manner which are consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. He also held that the circumstances were conclusive in nature and excluded every possible hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. 14. In the instant appeal, it is the duty of the court to adjudicate independently as to whether the evidence on record has established the chain of circumstances consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and nothing else. 15. We have already narrated the name and status of the witnesses who deposed during trial of the case. We have also delineated a list of paper exhibits and material exhibits. 16. Let us now scan the evidence on record independently. The informant is the mother of the deceased. 15. We have already narrated the name and status of the witnesses who deposed during trial of the case. We have also delineated a list of paper exhibits and material exhibits. 16. Let us now scan the evidence on record independently. The informant is the mother of the deceased. It is ascertain from her evidence that as a daily routine, deceased went to the house of one Vijay Bhadur Singh to collect milk at about 06:00 AM on 10 th October, 2016. She did not return to house for a long period, then the informant conducted a search. While searching, she found her daughter lying in injured condition on the plot of land adjacent to the House of Yogendra Singh . She immediately took her daughter for medical treatment to Raghunath Prasad. Raghunath Prasad medically examined her and declared her death. In her evidence, the informant narrated completely a different story. She stated on oath that during search, she found spilling of blood on the street in front of Sirkat Singh and the lid of the milk can was lying in a drain. Seeing this, she become unconscious. Local villagers brought her home. Then, Jairam Singh, elder brother of her husband told her that he brought her daughter in an injured condition and laid her down in the courtyard. Local people helped her to go to the courtyard and she saw her daughter with black mark around her neck, bleeding injury on her head. He suspected that the appellant committed murder of daughter. This statement and even her suspicion against the appellant was not stated in the FIR. In her initial statement statement before the police PW-1 stated that she suspected that some unknown person ¼vutku O;fDr½ committed murder of her daughter. 17. PW-2 Harinath Yadav in his evidence failed to throw any light as to how the daughter of the informant was murdered. He only stated on oath that he only heard that the appellant committed murder of the victim girl. 18. It is ascertained from the PW-3, who is elder brother of her father that on 10 th October 2016, around 06:00 AM, he was coming home after defecating in the field when he reached, Yogender Singh’s land, he saw the victim girl going to collect milk with a can in her hand. He also saw Anup following the victim girl. It is ascertained from the PW-3, who is elder brother of her father that on 10 th October 2016, around 06:00 AM, he was coming home after defecating in the field when he reached, Yogender Singh’s land, he saw the victim girl going to collect milk with a can in her hand. He also saw Anup following the victim girl. After some time, there was a hue and cry that the victim was murdered. Anup brought her dead body and kept it on the courtyard of the house of the informant. PW-3 also stated that when he saw Anup, he was in a state of panic. 19. PW-4, Vivek Kumar Singh is the son of PW-3. It is found from his evidence that on 10 th October 2016 at about 06:30/07:00 AM he saw the appellant carrying the victim girl in his lap. The witnesses asked him about what had happened. The appellant was in a state of panic, he said nothing thereafter, PW- 4 and Anup took the victim girl to the local doctor by a motorcycle and the doctor declared her dead. Anup then brought dead body of the victim girl and her home and the witnesses went to his house. It is important to note that PW-4 was not cross-examined by the defence. 20. PW-5, Dr. Bhupendra Nath Singh, Medical Officer at Sadar Hospital at Buxar conducted post-mortem examination of the deceased. He found the following injuries on her person: I. Face congested eye congested blood ting froth coming out from nostril and mouth. II. Abrasion over forehead, three in number, (i) ½ inches x ½ inches, (ii) ½ inches x ½ inches, (iii) ¼ inches x ¼ inches III- Four scratches over left breast each 1/8 inches. IV. Blackish bruise over anterior aspect of upper Chest 2” x Chest ½” (inches) V. Slight blackish bruise over front of neck horizontally placed in middle of neck 3” x 1/2”. On dissection of neck subcutaneous tissue under this injury found congested under line neck muscle found congested. VI. On examination of private part, blood stains found over Vulva, hymen was found rupture, virginal swab taken and seen under microscope. No spermatozoa either alive or dead found under low and high power of microscope R.B.C. found. VII. Signs of sexual act present. VIII. A lacerated wound over left side of middle of scalp ½: x 1/2” x muscle deep. On examination of private part, blood stains found over Vulva, hymen was found rupture, virginal swab taken and seen under microscope. No spermatozoa either alive or dead found under low and high power of microscope R.B.C. found. VII. Signs of sexual act present. VIII. A lacerated wound over left side of middle of scalp ½: x 1/2” x muscle deep. IX. All injuries are ante mortem and caused by hard and blunt substances. X. Internal Examination:- Larynx and lungs found congested. Heart-Left chamber empty. Right-Dark fluid blood. Present-intestine empty. Liver, Spleen and kidney were found congested. Urinary bladder empty, Uterus-NAD. 21. According to PW-5, the victim died of Asphyxia due to strangulation (throttling). In course of cross-examination, no question was asked to the PW-5 regarding his finding that the victim died of asphyxia due to strangulation (throttling). 22. PW-6, Dr. Madhu Singh examined the deceased and found the following injuries: “i. On examination of private part. Blood stains found on vulva Hymen was found ruptured. Vaginal swab taken and seen under microscope-No Spermatozoa either alive are dead found on low and high power of microscopic examination R.B.C. found. ii. Signs of sexual act present.” 23. P.W. 7 Vinay Kumar is the Investigating Officer of the Brahmpur P.S. Case No. 232 of 2016 dated 10 th of October, 2016. He stated on oath that he recorded fardbeyan as per the statement of P.W. Rita Devi then he prepared the inquest report of the dead body (Exhibit 4) of the victim girl which was lying on the courtyard of their house. He also inspected the scene of crime. P.W. 7 ascertained that the scene of crime is on the lane between the houses of Shirkat Singh and Sri Ram Singh at a distance of about 100 meters southeast from the house of the deceased. The accused caught hold of the victim girl while she was going through the lane, injured and ultimately killed her. Blood was found spill at the crime scene. Bloodstains were also found on the wall of Shirkat’s house adjacent to the crime scene. There is a lane running towards east of the scene of crime which closes after about 10 meters and rural road goes to Vijay Bahadur Singh’s house through Shirkat Singh’s door to the north of the place of occurrence. There is two- storey house of one Ram Singh to the west. There is a lane running towards east of the scene of crime which closes after about 10 meters and rural road goes to Vijay Bahadur Singh’s house through Shirkat Singh’s door to the north of the place of occurrence. There is two- storey house of one Ram Singh to the west. There is a dense jungle and bushes at the distance of about 10 meters to the south of Yogendra Singh’s house. The body of the deceased was found in the same jungle and bushes. The villagers pick it up and took it to her house and from her house, she was taken to a local doctor. The I.O. also stated on oath that soil and grass were found scattered in the said bush. A pair of slippers were also found from the place of occurrence which was seized by the I.O. During trial it was proved that the said slippers belonged to the victim girl. 24. P.W. 8 Dr. Uday Shankar Tripathi is a Medical Officer, In-charge of Brahmpur Primary Health Center on 14 th of October, 2016. He medically examined the appellant and found the following injury:- i) Two small healed scratch liaison on right wrist. ii) Old healed abrasion on front of left knee joint. iii) Old abrasion on back of left shoulder joint ½ Cm X ¼ Cm. iv) Old healed linear abrasion on back of lower part. Nature of injury – all the injuries are simple in nature caused by nails. Age of injury within five days. In cross- examination this witness has stated that he has not mentioned the effect of healing of injury no. (i). It is not correct to say that abrasion is a kind of would. 25. Other witnesses are formal in nature and detailed discussion of the witnessed appears to be not necessary. Argument on behalf of the appellant 26. The learned Advocate on behalf of the appellant submits that in order to bring home charge against the accused in a case based on circumstantial evidence, circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It has been held that the circumstances concerned “must or should” and not “may be” established. It has been held that there is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between “may be proved” and “must be or should be proved”. It has been held that the circumstances concerned “must or should” and not “may be” established. It has been held that there is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between “may be proved” and “must be or should be proved”. It has been held that the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. It has been held that the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one sought to be proved, and that there must be a chain of evidence so complete so as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. 27. It is a settled principle of law that however strong a suspicion may be, it cannot take place of a proof beyond reasonable doubt. In the light of these guiding principles, the learned Advocate for the appellant invites us to consider the present case. 28. In support of his argument, he refers to a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pardeep Kumar v. State of Haryana reported in (2024) 3 SCC 324 . 29. Coming to the instant case, it is submitted by the learned Advocate for the appellant that the informant did not state the name of the appellant as the perpetrator of the crime. On the other hand, in her fardebyan, she stated that some unknown person committed murder of her minor girl. It is found from her initial statement that she herself saw her daughter lying in injured condition on a land situated on the adjacent west of the house of one Yogendra Singh. Local villagers and the informant brought her to the local doctor for medically treatment. The local doctor declared her dead. In her evidence, she gave completely a different account of the event. She stated on oath that she saw stains of blood on the lane and the lid of the can in the drain. She became unconscious. Local people brought her to her house. There she saw the dead body of her daughter lying on the courtyard. In her evidence, she gave completely a different account of the event. She stated on oath that she saw stains of blood on the lane and the lid of the can in the drain. She became unconscious. Local people brought her to her house. There she saw the dead body of her daughter lying on the courtyard. Her Bhaisur (elder brother of her husband), P.W. 3 Jai Ram Singh told her that the appellant brought her daughter and laid her down in the courtyard. Thus, the evidence of P.W. 1 does not support her own story of recovery of the dead body of her girl by her lying on a plot of land by the side of the house of one Yogendra Singh. 30. The conduct of P.W. 3, Jai Ram Singh and P.W. 4 Vivek Kumar Singh was also not beyond suspicion. Jai Ram came to know that the deceased murdered hearing the hue and cry in the village. Then the appellant took the body of the deceased and kept it in the courtyard of her house. Surprisingly, enough Jai Ram did not even feel it necessary to ask the appellant as to how the informant’s girl had died. P.W. 3 further stated that when he saw the appellant, he was in a state of panic. It is very natural for human being to ask a panic stricken young man to say about the incident but nothing had happened. Jai Ram allowed Anup to go away without any resistance. 31. Similarly P.W. 4 saw Anup carrying the dead body of the victim girl. He extended his help to Anup to bring the dead body to the chamber of a local doctor. The doctor declared the victim girl dead. Under such circumstances also P.W. 4 did not ask the appellant as to how victim girl died. 32. Therefore, it is submitted by the learned Advocate for the appellant that there is a yawning gap between the charge against the appellant and the evidence that the prosecution has adduced. The circumstances do not establish the guilt of the appellant at all. 33. 32. Therefore, it is submitted by the learned Advocate for the appellant that there is a yawning gap between the charge against the appellant and the evidence that the prosecution has adduced. The circumstances do not establish the guilt of the appellant at all. 33. It is further contended by the learned Advocate on behalf of the appellant that there is only one witness, namely, Jai Ram Singh who stated on oath that while he was returning his house after defecating, he saw the girl of the informant was going through the lane with a can in her hand and the appellant was following her. Thus, prosecution tried to make out a case of last scene together against the appellant. 34. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the appellant that theory of last scene together cannot be the basis of conviction in the absence of other circumstances from which conclusion of guilt can be drawn without any iota of hypothesis or suspicion. 35. The learned Advocate for the appellant further argues that the appellant did not make any confessional statement before anybody which is admissible in evidence, either judicial or extra judicial. The Trial Court wrongly place reliance on the statement of the accused made before the Investigating Officer. It is needless to say that statement before the police officer is not admissible in evidence. 36. In support of his contention, he refers to paragraph no. 79 and 80 of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Ramanand v. State of U.P ., reported in (2023) 16 SCC 510 . In our considered view, the ratio of his judgment is not at all applicable because Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 79 and following paragraphs has dealt with the evidentiary value of extra judicial confession, any statement confessing guilt before the I.O. is not even an extra judicial confession and it is not at all admissible in evidence. Therefore the above judgement is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. 37. Referring to another decision in the case of Karakkattu Muhammed Basheer v. State of Kerala reported in (2024) 10 SCC 813 , the learned Advocate on behalf of the appellant submits that presence of deceased and the appellant on the spot at the same time was not proved by satisfactory evidence. 37. Referring to another decision in the case of Karakkattu Muhammed Basheer v. State of Kerala reported in (2024) 10 SCC 813 , the learned Advocate on behalf of the appellant submits that presence of deceased and the appellant on the spot at the same time was not proved by satisfactory evidence. Only on the basis of P.W. 3 Jai Ram’s evidence (P.W. 3), the prosecution wanted to prove that the appellant was following the victim girl on the date and time of occurrence. If a person follows another on the road, this does not a conclusively prove that he had met the girl on or near the place of occurrence for the purpose of committing penetrative sexual assault and murder. 38. We are constrained to note that the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Allarakha Habib Memon & Ors . v. State of Gujarat reported in (2024) 9 SCC 546 is also not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case because paragraph 40 of the said decision which has been relied on by the learned Advocate for the appellant discusses the admissibility of confession of the accused / appellant recorded by the Medical Officer while preparing the injury report of the accused. No such evidence is brought forward in the instant case. Argument on behalf of the respondent-State 39. The learned Government Advocate, on the other hand, submits that there is of course discrepancy in the initial statement of P.W. 1 made before the police on the basis of which Brhmpur P.S. Case No. 232 of 2016 was registered and her evidence on time and manner when and how he saw the dead body of the deceased in her fardebyan. She stated that she saw the dead body of her daughter lying in injured conditions on the land adjacent to the house of one Yogendra Singh. However in evidence, she stated that the accused himself brought the dead body of the deceased and had kept the same on her courtyard. In this regard, the learned Government Advocate submits that the victim is an illiterate lady. The incident took place on 10 th of October, 2016. Her evidence was recorded on 8 th of March, 2017. However in evidence, she stated that the accused himself brought the dead body of the deceased and had kept the same on her courtyard. In this regard, the learned Government Advocate submits that the victim is an illiterate lady. The incident took place on 10 th of October, 2016. Her evidence was recorded on 8 th of March, 2017. Therefore, this Court should not take into account the above-mentioned contradiction between the statement made by P.W. 1 in her fardebyan and her statement on oath and such contradiction should be regarded as minor discrepancy. 40. It is further submitted by the learned Advocate on behalf of the respondent that P.W. 3 stated in his evidence that saw the appellant carrying the dead body of deceased and laid her on the courtyard of the house of the de facto complainant. P.W. 3 also stated that he saw the appellant following the victim girl when she was going to fetch milk. Thus, from the evidence on record, it is ascertained that the appellant was following the victim through the lane where she went to collect milk. The appellant knew that the victim girl used to go to the house of Vijay Bahadur Singh to fetch milk. Therefore, on the fateful day of incident, he was following the victim girl and her dead body was found on the lane situated by the side of the house of Yogendra Singh inside a bush. This fact is reveled from the evidence of P.W. 1. If the circumstances are taken together, these suggests that the victim girl was taken by the appellant inside the bush then she was raped and murdered by the appellant. 41. It is further urged by the learned Advocate for the State that P.W. 4 saw the appellant carrying the dead body of the victim then he and the appellant took her by the motorcycle of P.W. 4 to the local doctor. The local doctor declared her dead. When the dead body was being carried out by the appellant, it was within his special knowledge to explain as to how the victim died and how he got custody of dead body of the victim. Not a single witness threw any light over the said fact. The local doctor declared her dead. When the dead body was being carried out by the appellant, it was within his special knowledge to explain as to how the victim died and how he got custody of dead body of the victim. Not a single witness threw any light over the said fact. It is absolutely natural and probable that the villagers asked the appellant who brought the dead body of the victim to her hose about the cause of death of the said minor girl and how he saw and brought the dead body of the said minor girl to her house. The accused failed to give any such explanation on the above- mentioned questions. When the appellant failed to explain the circumstances which were under his special knowledge, absence of such explanation is to be considered as an important circumstance pointing at the guilt of the accused. 42. The learned Advocate on behalf of the State further submits that from the evidence of Dr. Bhupendra Nath, P.W. 5 and Dr. Madhu Singh, P.W. 6, it appears that the victim was died of asphyxia by throttling. There was also signs of recent sexual assault in the private part of the victim. Thirdly, the accused was medically examined by P.W. 8, Dr. Uday Shankar Tripathi. He found old healed scratches and aberrations on the hands and other parts of the body of the appellant. The Medical Officer, P.W. 8 opined that such scratches and aberrations were about five days old. The victim died on 10 th of October, 2016. The accused was medically examined on 14 th of October, 2016. Thus, medical report suggests that the appellant received scratch marks and aberrations on his body more or less on the date of occurrence. The Medical Officer opined that the said scratches and aberrations were caused by nails. These injuries caused by healed mark also suggest that there was resistance offered by the victim when she was sexually assaulted and finally murdered. 43. According to the learned Advocate for the appellant all the above circumstances fully establish the fact from which conclusion of guilt of the accused can be drawn and there is no reason to interfere against the judgement passed by the trial Court. Our Assessment 44. 43. According to the learned Advocate for the appellant all the above circumstances fully establish the fact from which conclusion of guilt of the accused can be drawn and there is no reason to interfere against the judgement passed by the trial Court. Our Assessment 44. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116 , laid down the following five golden rules to constitute the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence. They are:- …..Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.” (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. 45. Bearing the above-mentioned principle enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and subsequently followed in almost all the judgments on circumstantial evidence including Pardeep Kumar (supra). Let us now considered the materials on record independently without being swayed over any extraneous considerations. 46. There is absolutely no evidence that the appellant had previous inclination or crush over the victim girl. Though in the evidence P.W. 1 for the first time stated that her daughter once told that the appellant used to disturb her on the road but such evidence was not supported by any other person and there is no corroboration in this regard. 47. Coming to the incident which took place on the date of occurrence, we find from the evidence of P.W. 3 Jai Ram Singh that while he was returning home after defecating, he saw the victim girl going through the lane to fetch milk and the appellant was following her. There is absolutely no evidence that anybody saw the victim in association with the appellant. There is absolutely no evidence that anybody saw the victim in association with the appellant. We have already stated that there are houses of various persons on both sides of the lane through which the victim was proceeding. Nobody came forward to say that he saw the appellant and the victim proceeding together through the said lane. 48. Secondly no evidence is forthcoming that the appellant either enticed or forcibly took the victim inside the bush grow on the land by the said of the house of Yogendra Singh. 49. The Investigating Officer recovered a pair slippers of the victim from the said bush. However no evidence was produced by the prosecution that there was some resistance offered by the victim to the appellant and as a result of such resistance, the appellant received nail injuries over his body. 50. It is found that the appellant carried the dead body of the victim towards his house. On the way he met P.W. 4 Vivek Kumar Singh, seeing the conditions of the victim, Vivek and the appellant took her to the local doctor by a motorcycle and the local doctor declared her dead. Surprisingly enough neither Jai Ram Singh nor Vivek Singh nor any other villager asked anything to the appellant as to how the victim died or how did the appellant found the body of the victim. 51. These are the missing links of the chain of circumstances and the prosecution failed to produce evidence to prove the missing links. The learned Trial Judge failed to consider the scope of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act states that any fact which is discovered in consequence of information received from a person, accused of any offence, in custody of police officer, may be proved when it relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered. In other words statement made or information given by an accused while in police custody must relate “distinctly” to the fact discovered. 52. Learned Trial Judge accepted the statement of the accused made before the police while he is in custody because it discovered existence of injury of nail marks on his body. Only on the basis of such wrong and illegal finding, not supported by law, the accused was held guilty and convicted and sentenced. 53. 52. Learned Trial Judge accepted the statement of the accused made before the police while he is in custody because it discovered existence of injury of nail marks on his body. Only on the basis of such wrong and illegal finding, not supported by law, the accused was held guilty and convicted and sentenced. 53. Needless to say that as per the existing law provided in Cr.P.C as well BNSS and in the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in D.K. Basu’s case. It is the first and foremost duty of the arresting officer to get accused examined medically. Medical examination report and existence of some injury on the body of the accused is admissible in evidence but the statement made before the police by the accused confessing his guilt to the fact that while committing the offence, he sustained nail mark injury over his body cannot be proved with the aid of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. 54. The decision of the trial Court in this regard is absolutely misconceived. Conclusion 55. For the reason stated above, we are of the view that prosecution failed to establish the charge under Sections 302, 201 and 376 of the IPC and Section 5(1)/6 of the POCSO Act and the judgement of conviction and the order of sentence is liable to be set aside. 56. Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed. 57. The judgement and order of conviction and sentence passed in POCSO Case No. 31 of 2016 arising out of Brahmpur P.S. Case No. 232 of 2016 is set aside. 58. The appellant is acquitted from the charge and released from the bail bond, and if he remains in the correction home, he be released at once.