voice that the appellants had made confession in the office chamber of the Investigating Officer at the Police Station. Likewise, Animesh Guru, Rafakat Hussain, Kooseswar Nath and Kuseswar Barman have also admitted that the appellants had made the confession at the place of occurrence in the presence of Police. It is well settled law that Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act must be construed strictly. Therefore, by operation of Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, the confession made by the appellants, while they were in the custody of Police Officer, cannot be proved against them. This being the legal position, the trial court, in our considered view, committed an apparent illegality in relying upon the evidence of extra judicial confession made by the appellants, while they were in the custody of Police. There is yet another reason to discard the evidence of extra judicial confession. According to the witnesses, the appellants confessed to have committed rape on the victim and when they again wanted to commit rape for the second time, she resisted and, therefore, they committed her murder. But the post mortem examination report nowhere mentions that the victim was subjected to any sexual abuse. Therefore, the post mortem examination report also creates a doubt on the truthfulness of the extra judicial confession said to have been made by the appellants.
