( 1 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution the clothes of the appellant stained with blood and he had destroyed them by setting fire to them and the appellant was willing to show that place and also the place where he had left the portion of the rope which was tied to the bullock. According to the prosecution the appellant said that he had himself kept the piece of the rope at that particular spot and he took the Police and the Panchas in a vehicle. According to the prosecution the Investigating Officer and the Panchas wont to the Wadi of the appellant at village Khambhodar and they got down near that Wadi and went near the residential hut of the appellant and the appellant took them at the back of the said hut and took out the piece of rope from amongst the grass heap which was attached by the Investigating Officer in the presence of the Panchas. According to the prosecution that piece of rope was compared in the presence of the Panchas with the piece of rope which was found from over the dead body and it appeared that they were pieces of the same rope. This is what is disclosed in the Panchnama Ex 40. So far as the substantive evidence of the Panch Kala Karsan P. W. 15 Ex. 39 is concerned he only states that the appellant told them that he will produce and the remaining Panchnama was made and that signatures were taken and thereafter the appellant took them to a threshing floor adjoining his Wadi and from there a piece of rope was recovered and ash was also recovered and they were attached by the Police Officer in their presence as per the Panchnama Ex. 40. He admitted that he had signed the Panchnama while the other Panch had put his thumb mark below the Panchnama. In cross-examination be stated that the Police told them that they had to go to the place for making a panchnama of the piece of rope and the ash and that that was told to them after going to the spot but not at the Bagavadar Police Station from where they started. He admitted that the place from where ash was recovered was an open place. He denied the suggestion that the Police pointed out those articles and stated that the appellant had pointed out those articles. He admitted that he did not know what were the contents of the writing which was prepared there. This Panch also admitted that the jeep driver who was with the Police told them that they had to go to the Wadi of the appellant. He had admitted that he had acted as a Panch on five to seven occasions before he acted as a Panch in the present case. He has also admitted that whenever Police calls him to act as a Panch he acts as a Panch. When this Panch has acted as a Panch on 5 to 7 occasions at the instance of Police as admitted by him it will be unsafe to place implicit reliance upon him. But apart from this the substantive evidence of this Panch does not show that the appellant made a statement that he had kept the piece of rope and he was inclined to point out that spot. The substantive evidence does not establish the authorship of concealment of the rope and therefore the evidence of this Panch does not advance the case of the prosecution any further. The contents of the Panchnama Ex 40 can be read only to corroborate the evidence of the Panch The contents of the Panchnama cannot be read as substantive piece of evidence. In view of this all that can be said to have been established by the prosecution is that the accused took the Police and the Panchas to a spot from where the piece of rope was recovered. This would only establish knowledge on the part of the appellant that the piece of rope was lying there and nothing more. This also will not advance the case of the prosecution any further.

( 2 ) THE evidence of the Investigating Officer P. W. 17 Ex. 44 so far as the recovery of the piece of rope at the instance of the appellant is concerned is only to the effect that the appellant was inclined to point out the piece of rope and then he took the Investigating Officer and the Panchas to the spo