Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.

1. We are pained that even basic principle of law that a confession made by an accused while in custody or in the presence of police is inadmissible in evidence, has not been kept in mind by the court below, while concluding trial against the present appellant.

2. In the present case, though two ladies namely Santosh Bai and her daughter Sittu @ Priyanka have been murdered, we are constrained to accept the appeal because the prosecution has failed to complete the chain of circumstances to arrive at the conclusion that the offence has been committed by the appellant Jaswant Singh alone and by none else.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on the night of 18.8.2013, Santosh Bai sister of complainant Hemraj Singh (P.W. 1) alongwith her daughter Sittu @ Priyanka were murdered with an incised weapon. It is further case of the prosecution that on 21.8.2013 accused got recovered a knife and thus, he committed offence punishable under Section 4/25 of Arms Act.

4. The appellant Jaswant Singh was tried by the court of Additional Sessions Judge No. 6, Kota. The said court vide impugned judgment dated 25.7.2015 recorded conviction of the appellant for the offences under Section 302 IPC and Section 4/25 of Arms Act.

5. Having convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offences, the trial court vide a separate order of even date, sentenced the appellant as under:-

U/s. 4/25 Arms Act:- to undergo three years RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment, to further undergo additional six months imprisonment.

U/s. 302 IPC:- to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo additional one year imprisonment.

6. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

7. Aggrieved against his conviction and sentence, the appellant has filed the present appeal through jail. During the pendency of the appeal, Mr. Dheeraj Singhal has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the appellant Jaswant Singh.

8. Ms. Rekha Madnani, learned Public Prosecutor who thoroughly prepared the case and has vehemently defended the conviction and sentence of the appellant, has very fairly submitted that the following circumstances from the prosecution case have emerged against the appellant:-

(i) That the appellant made extra-judicial confession to Satyanarain (P.W. 3) in front of Hari Narain (P.W. 8) and Phool Chand (not examined).

(ii) That at the instance of the appellant, knife, pant and shirt were recovered vide memo Exhibit-P/11 in pursuance of disclosure statement made by the accused vide memo Exhibit-P/58.

(iii) That Smt. Sajjan Bai (P.W. 17) grandmother of the accused has deposed regarding motive on the part of the accused appellant.

(iv) That in the report of State Forensic Science Laboratory (Exhibit-P/62), it was opined that the clothes of the accused and the knife were stained with human blood. It is further submitted that Ghaghara, Skirt, Chaddi of the deceased and shirt of the accused were stained with human blood, Blood Group of which has been determined as 'A'.

9. The prosecution in order to secure the conviction of the appellant examined twenty witnesses namely Hemraj Singh (P.W. 1), Rishiraj Singh (P.W. 2), Satyanarain (P.W. 3), Shyam Singh (P.W. 4), Deepak Kumar (P.W. 5), Dr. Smt. Riddhi Kapoor (P.W. 6), Narendra Singh (P.W. 7), Hari Narain (P.W. 8), Jeevan Singh (P.W. 9), Dr. Lalit Kumar Sharma (P.W. 10), Dr. Vivek Goyal (P.W. 11), Vimal Kumar (P.W. 12), Mahendra Singh (P.W. 13), Mahesh Kumar (P.W. 14), Jitendra Singh (P.W. 15), Smt. Ganga Bai (P.W. 16), Smt. Sajjan Bai (P.W. 17), Suresh Singh (P.W. 18), Rambharoshi (P.W. 19) and Salauddin (P.W. 20).

10. The criminal proceedings in the present case were set into motion on the basis of written report (Exhibit-P/1) submitted by Hemraj Singh (P.W. 1) on the basis of which, formal FIR bearing No. 15/2013 (Exhibit-P/15) was registered at Police Station Dewali, Manjhi, District Kota for the offence under Section 302