shift of burden of proof under Section 106 CrPC to prove a certain fact, strictly within the knowledge of the Appellants is wholly erroneous. 17. It is further submitted that the entire case of the Prosecution rests upon a confession of the Appellant No.1, Crl. A. No.757 of 2015 Page 10 of 16however the same is struck by Section 27 of the Evidence Act and hence cannot be admissible in the court of law in order to bring home the guilt of the present Appellants. 18. Per contra, the Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent State defended the Impugned Order, it was submitted that that the Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in a proper manner; and consequently, this glaring error led to the acquittal of the accused persons i.e., the Appellants. It was further submitted that the testimonies of P.W.-3 and P.W.-4 were incorrectly rejected by the Trial Court as purely circumstantial, whereas the entire set of facts read together with the medical evidence, strictly point