JUDGMENT Thingnam Dhabalo Singh aged 15 years, son of late Lukindra Singh, resident of Kakching Khunou, Police Station Mayang Imphal, has been charged under S.302, Penal Code for having, on 18-6-1953 at about 11 P.M. near the back door of his residential house in village Kakching Khunou, Police Station Mayang Imphal, committed the murder of Thingnam Lukindra Singh by intentionally causing his death after striking him with a Dao (sharp-edged weapon). 2. The facts of the case as alleged by the prosecution are that Thingnam Dhabalo Singh accused is the son of Thingnam Lukindra Singh who used to reside in village Kakching Khunou along with the accused, his mother Kheidem Ningol Thingnam Ongbi Leipaklei Devi, and his two elder brothers Thingnam Anoubi Singh P.W.1 and Thingnam Pocha alias Ibomcha Singh P.W.2. According to the prosecution Thingnam Lukindra Singh had 3 wives, viz: Srimati Pemcha Devi mother of Thingnam Tomal Singh P.W.3, Kheidem Ningol Thingnam Ongbi Leipaklei Devi mother of the accused, and Srimati Yumsangbi Devi who was the youngest; and the deceased appeared to be more favourably inclined towards his youngest wife. Thingnam Anoubi Singh P.W.1 and Thingnam Pocha alias Ibomcha Singh P.W.2 were reported against by the deceased on 10-5-1953 and it was alleged against them that they had beaten their father and they had removed his pair of bullocks by force vide Ex.P/3 which has been proved by Shri Rajendra Singh, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police P.W.6. The deceased wanted to give the bullocks and his agricultural holding to his youngest wife and he forcibly snatched two bullocks from the hands of the accused on 18-6-1953 inside a field and so the accused was very much displeased with his father. On 18-6-1953 the mother of the accused took stale rice for him in the field presumably because she could not secure good rice for him and so the accused was much more irritated as against his father. On the evening of 18-6-1953 there was a meeting in the Mandop of Iboyaima Sarma at a distance of half a mile from the house of the accused and Thingnam Anoubi Singh P.W.1 had gone to attend that meeting. Thingnam Pocha alias Ibomcha Singh P.W.2 was outside the house that night. Thingnam Lukindra Singh after finishing his days work returned to his house on 18-6-1953 and Thingnam Pocha alias Ibomcha Singh P.W.2 saw him entering the house. Thingnam Pocha alias Ibomcha Singh P.W.2 was outside the house that night. Thingnam Lukindra Singh after finishing his days work returned to his house on 18-6-1953 and Thingnam Pocha alias Ibomcha Singh P.W.2 saw him entering the house. The deceased went to the back door and the present accused followed him wath a Maring Thang (Dao) and when the deceased was washing his feet the accused gave him 2 or 3 strokes from behind with the Dao with the result that Thingnam Lukindra Singh could not utter a word as he fell down and died on the spot. The accused then sat by the Thomnga (fireplace), the mother of the accused was sleeping and after some time the accused informed her of the murder. She then went outside (Vide her statement recorded before the Committing Magistrate on 7-9-1953 which has been read under S.33, Evidence Act as this lady has died before she could be examined in this Court) and informed Thingnam Pocha alias Ibomcha Singh P.W.2 who went to the Mandop of Iboyaima Sarma to inform Thingnam Anoubi Singh. Thingnam Anoubi Singh informed some of the people present in the meeting about this occurrence and then he went to the house of Debo and told him all the facts. Then Debo, Thingnam Anoubi Singh and other villagers including Khomenjao Singh went to the residential house of the deceased and found him lying in a pool of blood in the back door. The body of the deceased was inside the house to the extent of half and the other portion was outside the house. Thingnam Anoubi Singh found the accused lying on a charpoy inside a mosquito-net and the accused was sleeping that time, but his mother was sitting near the fire-place. Thingnam Anoubi Singh was informed by his mother that the accused had murdered his father Thingnam Lukindra Singh, and so this witness went to khumukcham Kuber Singh, chaukidar P.W.5. The chaukidar at once went to the house of the deceased and at that time the accused was found sitting near the fire place and the Dao Ex.P-1 was also found inside the house. Yumnam Gourmani Singh was also called by the chaukidar on the spot and he wrote out the extra-judicial confession of the accused vide Ex.P-C in the presence of Khumukcham Kuber Singh P.W.5 and other villagers. 3. Yumnam Gourmani Singh was also called by the chaukidar on the spot and he wrote out the extra-judicial confession of the accused vide Ex.P-C in the presence of Khumukcham Kuber Singh P.W.5 and other villagers. 3. Thingnam Anoubi Singh P.W.1 went to the Police Station Mayang Imphal next morning to lodge the F.I.R. dated 19-6-1953 Ex.P/A. In this report Thingnam Anoubi Singh has stated that on 18-6-1953 at about 11 P.M. his younger brother Thingnam Dhabalo Singh had killed his father Lukindra Singh by striking him with a dagger and he prayed that an investigation might be made Vide Ex.P/A. 4. Shri Khogendra Singh O/C wrote out the above-mentioned F.I.R. and he started for the spot along with Narengbam Yaima Singh constable No.114 P.W.9 and others. The present accused was found inside the house and so he was taken in custody. The corpse of Thingnam Lukindra Singh was taken in custody by the O/C and it was examined by him in the presence of the Panches. The O/C prepared an inquest report dated 19-6-1953 Ex.P/F. The corpse was then sent to Imphal Mortuary through Narengbam Yaima Singh constable No.114 P.W.9, Tomba Singh and two relatives of the deceased viz: Thingnam Tomal Singh and Thingnam Anoubi Singh were also sent to the mortuary with the corpse. Earlier Mayanglambam Yalma Singh P.W.10, Khumukcham Romon Singh chaukidar, P.W.11 and other village people had seen the corpse of Lukindra Singh. The O/C, had before examining the corpse, taken in his possession the Dao Ex.P-1 by means of the recovery list Ex.P/E as he had found it blood-stained. 5. Shri Chonktham Khogendra Singh P.W.13 inspected the locality and he prepared the site plan dated 19-8-1953 Ex.P/M and the Khasra (index) Ex.P/N and he recovered the blood-stained khaki shirt Ex.P-4, one khaki cloth Ex.P-5 and the blood-stained towel Ex.P-6 from the spot by means of the recovery list Ex.P/G, and he also seized one wooden tray (washing tub) Ex.P-2, one empty kerosene oil tin Ex.P-3 and one bloodstained old towel Ex.P-7 through the recovery lists Ex.P/H and P-I. Two pieces of wood which were blood-stained were also recovered from the door frame where the deceased was lying and then the recovery list Ex.P/J was prepared. The extra-judicial confession recorded by Yumnam Gourmani Singh P.W.4, Ex.P/C was handed over to the O/C by the chaukidar on 19-6-1953 and then the O/C prepared the recovery list Ex.P/L. 6. The extra-judicial confession recorded by Yumnam Gourmani Singh P.W.4, Ex.P/C was handed over to the O/C by the chaukidar on 19-6-1953 and then the O/C prepared the recovery list Ex.P/L. 6. The O/C examined Thingnam Anoubi Singh, Khumukcham Roman Singh, chaukidar, Khumukcham Kuber Singh, chaukidar, Thingnam Pocha alias Ibomcha Singh, Khedem Ningol Thingnam Ongbi Leipaklei Devi on 19-6-1953 and Mayanglambam Yaima Singh and Thingnam Tomal Singh were examined by him on 30-6-1953 while the statement of Yumnam Gourmani Singh was recorded by him on 30-7-1953 during the course of investigation. 7. The corpse of Thingnam Lukindra Singh was taken to the mortuary, Imphal by Narengbam Yaima Singh constable and it was duly identified before the post mortem examination by Thingnam Tomal Singh son of the deceased. Dr. H. Gulapchand Singh, Resident Medical officer, civil Hospital, Imphal P.W.12 held the post mortem examination at 4-30 P.M. on 19-6-1953. The post mortem report Ex.P/O shows that the deceased was about 70 years old at the time of his death and about 24 hours had elapsed at the time of the post mortem examination since his death. The following injuries were found on the corpse of Thingnam Lukindra Singh at the time of the post mortem examination: 1. One incised would 5" x 3" bone deep on the occiput running from side to side depth being directed downwards and inward cutting the first and second cervical vertebrae together with the spinal cord completely. 2. One incised wound 3" x 1" skull deep directing downwards and outwards on the right side of the head. 3. One incised wound 4" x 1" brain deep running parallel to injury No.2; brain substance being protruded. 4. One incised wound 4" x 2" skull deep the upper table of skull being sliced off in the dimension of 1½" diameter running parallel to injury No.3. 5. One incised wound 4" x 1" bone deep on the left cheek causing fracture of the same bone directed downwards and outwards. 6. One incised wound 5" x 3" bone deep causing fracture of jaw bone with three teeth-depth being directed downwards and inwards up to the middle of neck cutting thyroid cartillage and trachea with internal carotid vessels on both sides of the neck. 8. These injuries were ante mortem and might have been inflicted with a sharp-edged weapon. No.1, 3 and 6 were fatal injuries. 8. These injuries were ante mortem and might have been inflicted with a sharp-edged weapon. No.1, 3 and 6 were fatal injuries. The cause of death was shock and haemorrhage caused by these injuries which could be caused by the Dao Ex. P-1 vide post mortem examination report dated 19-6-1953 Ex.P/O and the statement of Dr. N. Gulapchand Singh P.W.12. 9. The O/C sent Thingnam Dhabalo Singh accused to Shri O. Niladhwaja Singh, Magistrate First Class, P.W.8 on 20-6-1953 for recording the confession of the accused and the latter recorded his confession Ex.P/D after observing all necessary formalities and after satisfying himself that the confession was genuine. In this confession the accused has stated as follows: "My father had two wives. One of them is my mother. In the morning of day before yesterday I ploughed the field by hiring cattle from one Mayanglambam Angou Singh of my village. My father had not given me low or ingkhol or cattle, but he gave me 2 cows which were also taken away from me and given to my stepmothers son. There were 4 bullocks. I ploughed the field by taking 2 bullocks which were also taken away. In the morning of day before yesterday when I was cultivating, my mother had brought some stale rice. I had eaten it and remained there watching the field during the evening. The field that I ploughed was the property given to my brother by my father, but my father charged rent for it. I felt very much dissatisfied when I was in the field by eating the stale rice. If my father had given me cattle this would not have happened. I remained in the field waiting and at about sun-set I brought the yoke and plough with great trouble. Then I resolved to kill my father being dissatisfied. On reaching my home father was not found there. My mother remained sleeping after giving me meal but no curry was prepared and chatney was prepared from 2 mangoes. My mother had brought some Phabus (dry fish) for one anna and I had eaten two of them. She asked me to go to bed but I refused. Then I took my seat near Phanga (fire place) on a Phal (a piece of wooden plank) and watched till my father came. About one hour later my father came back. My mother had brought some Phabus (dry fish) for one anna and I had eaten two of them. She asked me to go to bed but I refused. Then I took my seat near Phanga (fire place) on a Phal (a piece of wooden plank) and watched till my father came. About one hour later my father came back. He took the tub lying near the G. Kot (barn) and washed his feet at the back door facing towards outside. When he was washing his feet I killed him by striking him with a dagger now lying in the Court, on both sides of his neck. He had fallen near the door. I came back near the Phanga and remained there sitting. After a while I woke up my mother and informed her of the murder. My brother was at Mangul (outer part of the house) singing. My mother went out and informed him. On that day villagers assembled at the Mandop and my second brother had also joined the meeting there. I went there and informed him of the murder. My brother informed the village chaukidar and the Nambor and then I was arrested" 10. The O/C after completing the investigation challaned the present accused under S.302, Penal Code on 2-8-1953. Kheidem Ningol Thingnam Ongbi Leipaklei Devi, mother of the accused, died, after this case was committed to this Court and before it was actually taken up for hearing vide statement of S. Narahari Singh constable No.47, P.W.7 and so her statement has been read in evidence under S.33, Evidence Act vide Ex.P/P. 11. Thingnam Dhabalo Singh accused has denied the charge and he has contended that after his return from the field on 18-3-1953, he took his meal and slept and he does not know how his father was murdered. Later on his mother woke him up and he found villagers assembled at his house and they forced him to make extra judicial confession Ex.P/C. Later on account of fear of police torture he made the confession Ex.P/D before Shri O. Niladhwalja Singh, Magistrate First Class, P.W.8. He denies having given the Dao Ex.P-1 to the chaukidar. He has admitted that his fathers treatment towards him was bad and he was dissatisfied with his father on this account. He denies having given the Dao Ex.P-1 to the chaukidar. He has admitted that his fathers treatment towards him was bad and he was dissatisfied with his father on this account. He has also admitted that his mother had given him stale rice that day and his father had snatched bullocks from his hands in the field. He has however stated that he was not very much dissatisfied with him on this ground. He has not given any reason as to why has he been implicated in this case and he has nothing to say against the prosecution witnesses. The accused denied the charge in the Court of the Committing Magistrate as well vide his statetment recorded before the Committing Magistrate on 29-3-1954 Ex.P/Q. He has not examined witness in defence either in this Court or in the Court of the Committing Magistrate. He has not produced any documentary evidence either. 12. The first question which deserves consideration in this case is whether the prosecution has established beyond doubt that Thingnam Lukindra Singh was actually done to death at about 11 P.M. inside his house on 18-6-1953. The prosecution has examined the sons of the deceased viz: Thingnam Anoubi Singh P.W.1, Thingnam Pocha alias Ibomcha Singh P.W.2 and Thingnam Tomai Singh P.W.3 as well as Mayanglambam Yaima Singh P.W.10, Khumukcham Romon Singh P.W.11 chaukidar, who have deposed that they actually saw the corpse of the deceased immediately after the alleged murder. The First information report Ex.P/A was lodged at 7-30 A. M. next morning and it gives the material facts of this case briefly but succinctly. Shri Chongtham Khogendra Singh O/C. P.W.13 after writing out the report Ex.P/A went to the spot and he took the corpse of Thingnam Lukindra Singh in custody and he and the Panchas inspected it and then the inquest report Ex.P/F was prepared. Narengbam Yaima Singh constable No.114 P.W.9 was given this corpse for taking it to the mortuary at Imphal and he duly brought it here and submitted it in the custody of the Resident Medical Officer, Imphal. Narengbam Yaima Singh constable No.114 P.W.9 was given this corpse for taking it to the mortuary at Imphal and he duly brought it here and submitted it in the custody of the Resident Medical Officer, Imphal. Shri N. Gulapehand Singh, Resident Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Imphal, P.W.12 held the post mortem examination of Thingnam Lukindra Singh vide post mortem examination report Ex.P/O which shows that six incised wounds (to which reference has already been made by me above) had been inflicted on Thingnam Lukindra Signh by means of sharp-edged weapon like the Dao Ex.P-1. The evidence of the prosecution wit nesses mentioned above as well as Yumnam Gour mani Singh P.W.4, Khumukcham Kuber Sing P.W.5 and Khumukcham Romon Singh P.W.1 as well as the statement of Kheidem Ningol Thing nam Ongbi Leipklei Devi Ex.P/P, go to show that the present accused mentioned at first before his mother that Thingnam Lukindra Singh had been murdered and later on he stated the same before the villagers and then his statement was reduced to writing vide Ex.P/C. The confession of the accused recorded by Shri O. Niladhwaja Singh, Magistrate First Class P.W.8 Ex.P/D also suggests that Thingnam Lukindra Singh was actually done to death that night. The present accused has admitted in this Court also that Thingnam Lukindra Singh is dead and he was killed on the night in question. As such it can be safely inferred that Thingnam Lukindra Singh was actually done to death on the night in question when six incised wounds were inflicted on him by a sharp-edged weapon like the Dao Ex.P-1, and I hold accordingly. 13. The next question which arises for consideration is whether the prosecution has established in this case that the present accused had adequate motive for committing the murder of his own father inside his own house at about 11 P.M. on the night of 18-6-1953. The prosecution case is that Thingnam Lukindra Singh, who was aged 70 years and had married a third wife, was not treating the accused, his brothers and mother properly and so the accused was very much dissatisfied with him. The prosecution case is that Thingnam Lukindra Singh, who was aged 70 years and had married a third wife, was not treating the accused, his brothers and mother properly and so the accused was very much dissatisfied with him. The statement of Srimati Leipaklei Devi Ex.P/P shows that the deceased had 10 paris of land and a number of cattle, and at the time of cultivating land he utilised the services of her 3 sons, and after harvesting he stored the produce at the house of her co-wife and he did not give sufficient paddy to the accuseds mother with the result that the accused, his brothers and mother did not get anything for subsistence. The result was that there was a quarrel between the sons and the deceased. The statement of Srimati Leipaklei Devi has not been supported by any cogent evidence so far as the alleged quarrel mentioned above is concerned. Reliance has been placed on the report Ex.P/B to show that Thingnam Lukindra Singh deceased had lodged a report against Thingnam Anoubi Singh P.W.1 and Thingnam Pocha alias Ibomcha Singh P.W.2 under S.351, Penal Code. This report has not been duly proved by the scribe and even if it is read in evidence it merely goes to show that the elder brothers of the accused could have some motive for causing any injury to their father Thingnam Lukindra Singh, but the present accused who appears to be only of 15 years of age appears to have no concern with the incident dated 10-5-1953. 14. It has been admitted by Thingnam Pocha alias Imbomcha Singh P.W.2 that Thingnam Lukindra Singh used to live with the accused, his mother and his brothers in one and the same house upto the date of alleged murder, and Thingnam Anoubi Singh P.W.1 has further admitted, that his father used to take his meals at his house although Thingnam Pocha alias Ibomcha Singh P.W.2 tried to show on the next date of hearing that although his father used to stay with these brothers he used to take meals generally at the house of his youngest wife. As such it becomes clear that the prosecution witnesses are now trying to show that the deceased had recently adopted a very hostile attitude towards the accused and his mother, but this version does not appear to be substantiated from the evidence on the record. As such it becomes clear that the prosecution witnesses are now trying to show that the deceased had recently adopted a very hostile attitude towards the accused and his mother, but this version does not appear to be substantiated from the evidence on the record. Again if the deceased had married a third wife only a few months before the alleged murder, it can be argued that he had reason to become actively hostile towards his former wives and their children, but in this case it has been admitted by Khumukcham Romon Singh, chaukidar P.W.11 that the deceased has a son Manglemjao Singh from his youngest wife and this son is 17 or 18 years old and the present accused is younger to Manglemjao Singh. If the present accused did not become angry with his father on account of his marrying a third wife during the last 20 years and if there had been no incident whatsoever between the father and the accused and his brothers within one month preceding the murder, it seems very difficult to believe that the present accused, all of a sudden, got angry and he committed the murder of his father on account of his having married a third wife. 15. The accused has in this case frankly admitted that he was dissatisfied with his father to some extent on account of his bad treatment towards him, but he was not very much dissatisfied with his father on this account nor on account of his fathers snatching away bullocks from his hands on 18-6-1953. The accused has further stated that his mother had given him stale rice that day and these two matters had not made him very much dissatisfied against his father. As has already been mentioned above, the deceased had lodged a report against the elder brothers of the accused, and so the latter could be deemed to have adequate motive for injuring their father but not the present accused. If there had really been any serious rift between the deceased and Srimati Leipaklei Devi and her sons, the old Thingnam Lukindra Singh could never have continued to live at the house of the accused during the night time and he would not have come to the house at about 10 or 11 P.M. after finishing his clays work at the house of the accused on 18-6-1953. I am, therefore, of opinion that the prosecution has in this case failed to establish that the present accused who is aged only 15 years, and against whom no documentary or cogent oral evidence has been produced to show that he was very much dissatisfied against his father prior to 18-6-1953, had any adequate motive for murdering his father Thingnam Lukindra Singh. 16. Even if it were assumed for the sake of argument that the prosecution has established that the present accused had motive to commit the murder of his father, this fact alone would not be sufficient for conviction of the accused in this case. It has been laid down in - Mt. Gajrani v. Emperor, AIR 1933 All 394(A) that the evidence of motive which is frequently given in these cases is of subsidiary importance, and the mere fact that the accused had a motive to cause the death of the deceased is not a fact which will dispense with the proof of the second and the third points that the accused had got a suitable immediate occasion for committing the crime (possessing poison in this case) and of actually completing it (actually administering the poison to the deceased). 17. As regards the question whether the present accused got a suitable immediate occasion for committing the murder of his father on the night of 18-6-1953, it has been suggested by the prosecution that the accused had become very much irritated on that day as his mother had taken stale rice for him to the field and in the evening also proper food was not given to him and his father had forcibly snatched a pair of bullocks from his hands from the field that day. Both these facts have been frankly admitted by the accused, but he has added that these minor facts did not irritate him very much. It is clear from the evidence of the mother of the accused that the father had taken the entire land from her sons and he used to charge rent for them and he had stored the crop raised by her sons in the house of the third wife, but even then no incident took place during the one month preceding this murder. The fact that sufficient paddy was not given by the evidence of the mother of the accused that the father had taken the entire land from her sons under the conditions mentioned above the accused must have become used to such ordinary difficulties, and the statement of the accused that he was dissatisfied with his father no doubt, but these incidents did not make him very angry as against his father, appears to be correct. 18. It has been stated by Srimati Leipaklei Devi in Ex.P/B that on the night of occurrence the accused and she were inside the house while Pocha alias Ibomcha Singh P.W.2 was singing in the outer courtyard and the eldest son Thingnam Anoubi Singh P.W.1 had gone to the Mandop of Bamon Iboyaima at a distance of half a mile to attend a meeting. It has been suggested that the present accused on finding that his mother had slept, got a suitable immediate occasion to murder his father when he was washing his feet in the tray Ex. P-2 near the back door which provided an exit from the house. The statement of Srimati Leipaklei Devi Ex.P/P shows that she asked the accused to go to bed with her but he said that he would go out for a walk. This version does not find any mention in the extra judicial confession Ex.P/C or in the confession Ex.P/D. Srimati Leipaklei Devi then went to bed and fell fast asleep. She was aroused from sleep by the accused and she was informed by him that he had committed the murder of his father and the mother was asked to mention this fact to Pocha alias Ibomcha Singh P.W.2 and she was further requested to send Ibomcha alias Pocha Singh to call the eldest brother Anoubi Singh P.W.1 to the spot. The mother did not go to see whether her husband had been killed or not. It has been suggested on the basis of the confession Ex.P/D that the deceased entered the house that night about one hour after Srimati Leipaklei Devi had gone to sleep and so the present accused had got an opportunity of committing this murder at about 11 P.M. when the father was washing his feet. It has been suggested on the basis of the confession Ex.P/D that the deceased entered the house that night about one hour after Srimati Leipaklei Devi had gone to sleep and so the present accused had got an opportunity of committing this murder at about 11 P.M. when the father was washing his feet. But Thingnam Pocha alias Ibomcha Singh P.W.2 has stated that the deceased had returned at about half an hour after the sun-set on 18-6-1953 and it is very difficult to believe that the fact of the deceased returning to the house at about 10 or 11 P.M. in the night of 18-6-1953, has been substantiated. The extra judicial confession Ex.P/C suggests that as soon as the deceased entered the house the accused followed him with a Maring Thang (Dao) and when the deceased was washing his feet the accused gave 2 or 3 strokes on his neck and this instantly killed him, but this statement is negatived by the statement of Pocha alias Ibomcha Singh P.W.2 referred to above. 19. There is yet another circumstance which goes very much in favour of the accused in this case. It is alleged by the prosecution that the accused finding that his father was washing his feet near the outer door and that there was nobody in the house and his mother was asleep, attacked the father with a Dao and later on the accused sat near the fire-place, but the statement of Thingnam Pocha alias Ibomcha Singh P.W.2 shows that when his mother went to inform him about this murder he heard her waking up the accused from sleep in a loud tone crying "Dhabalo Dhabalo". If the accused had really got a suitable occasion for committing the murder of his father he could not have fallen asleep to be awakened in a loud tone by the mother within such a short time. The other prosecution witnesses have tried to show that the accused sat near the fire-place and he pointed out the Dao Ex.P-1 to the chaukidar. But this version is negatived by the statement of Pocha alias Ibomcha Singh P.W.2 referred to above, which corroborates the statement of the accused in this Court to the effect that after returning from the field that day he took his meal and then slept. But this version is negatived by the statement of Pocha alias Ibomcha Singh P.W.2 referred to above, which corroborates the statement of the accused in this Court to the effect that after returning from the field that day he took his meal and then slept. After taking into consideration all the circumstances mentioned by me above I am of opinion that the prosecution has in this case failed to establish that the present accused got a suitable immediate occasion for committing the murder of his father at about 10 or 11 P.M. on 18-6-1953. 20. Coming now to the main question as to whether the prosecution has established in this case beyond all reasonable doubt that the present accused actually committed the murder of Thingnam Lukindra Singh, I find that the prosecution has not produced any eye witness of the alleged murder of Thingnam Lukindra Singh by the present accused. Reliance has been placed on the extra judicial confession Ex.P/C of the accused which is alleged to have been made before his own mother in the first instance and then before the police chaukidar and other villagers and also on the confession Ex.P/D which has been recorded by Shri O. Niladhwaja Singh, Magistrate First Class, P.W.8. The accused has retracted his corFfessions mentioned above and he has urged that the alleged confessions Ex.P/C and Ex.P/D were neither genuine nor voluntary. According to the accused his mother and the other village people whom he had seen assembled on waking up from sleep that night, forced him to make the confession Ex.P/C and regarding the confession Ex.P/D he has stated that he made it because of fear of torture at the hands of the Police. It is to be seen whether these confessions were genuine or voluntary or whether they have been obtained under threat and compulsion from the accused. It is to be seen whether these confessions were genuine or voluntary or whether they have been obtained under threat and compulsion from the accused. Regarding the alleged confession made to the mother of the accused there is no doubt that in the statement Ex.P/P it has been mentioned that the accused woke up his mother and asked her to call Pocha alias Ibomcha Singh and to send him to Anoubi Singh P.W.1 as the accused had murdered his father, but this version does not appear to be correct for Pocha alias Ibomcha Singh P.W.2 has clearly stated in cross-examination that when his mother came out to inform him about this murder he heard her waking up the accused in a loud tone saying "Dhabalo, Dhabalo". If the accused had really confessed to his mother and the mother had hastened to call Pocha alias Ibomcha Singh P.W.2 from the court-yard, she could never have any occasion for waking up the accused from a deep sleep in a loud tone. Srimati Leipaklei Devi could not be examined in this Court and as her statement in the Court of the Committing Magistrate has been effectively rebutted by the statement of Thingnam Pocha alias Ibomcha Singh P.W.2 in cross-examination and as there is no other evidence to substantiate the prosecution case regarding the extra judicial confession of the accused before his mother, I am unable to hold that the prosecution has in this case proved that the accused really made any confession before his mother on the night in question. 21. Regarding the extra judicial confession Ex.P/C, it is admitted by Tumnam Gourmani Singh P.W.4 that the police chaukidar Khumukcham Romon Singh asked questions to the accused and the answers to these questions were written out in Ex.P/C. Khumukcham Kuber Singh, chaukidar, P.W.5 has supported the statement of Yumnam Gourmani Singh P.W.4 on this point, and Khumukcham Romon Singh P.W.11 has clearly admitted in cross-examination that when he first reached the spot he asked the accused as to why had he murdered his father. The question should have been as to who had committed the murder or whether the accused had committed the murder or not, but the above-mentioned question was put to the accused in a threatening manner. The question should have been as to who had committed the murder or whether the accused had committed the murder or not, but the above-mentioned question was put to the accused in a threatening manner. This chaukidar has clearly admitted that before putting the above-mentioned question he had threatened the accused and so it becomes clear that the extra judicial confession Ex.P/C was obtained by the police officials after intimidating the accused. It has been laid down in - Keramat Mandol v. King-Emperor, AIR 1926 Cal 320 (B), that statements of accused made to the police or while in the custody of the police officer about his committing the offence and his pointing out the place where he committed the offence, are not admissible under S.26, Evidence Act. Section 25, Evidence Act clearly provides that no confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence. Section 24 of the same Act provides that confession made by an accused person is irrelevant in a criminal proceeding, if the making of the confession appears to the Court to have been caused by any inducement, threat or promise having reference to the charge against the accused person proceeding from a person in authority and sufficient, in the opinion of the Court, to give the accused person grounds which would appear to him reasonable for supposing that by making it he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature in reference to the proceedings against him. 22. In - Desraj v. Emperor, AIR 1928 Lab 858 (C), it has been laid down that apart from the question whether or not extra judicial confessions are inadmissible in evidence, they are not of such a nature as entitle them to any weight, because it is impossible to ascertain the exact words used by the person. To base a conviction on such a confession is not safe. To base a conviction on such a confession is not safe. In - Udhan Lohar v. Emperor, AIR 1939 All 685 (D), it has been laid down that where an accused who has stated to the police officer that he has killed the deceased with a spear and then broke the spear and threw the spearhead in the well takes the police officer to the well where, on search the spearhead is discovered, the statement made by the accused to the police officer is admissible in evidence, but it was very unsafe to rely on extra judicial confession of this kind when there was no corroborative evidence to support it. In the extra judicial confession Ex.P/C it is mentioned that the accused gave 2 or 3 strokes on the neck of the deceased, but the post mortem report Ex.P/O shows that the deceased had six very serious incised wounds and so this extra judicial confession is found to be incorrect in material particulars. It was not mentioned in the confession Ex.P/C that the accused murdered the deceased with the Dao Ex.P-1 and it has not further been mentioned in it that the accused himself went to the Mandop to call his eldest brother that night, but these two facts have been mentioned in the regular confession Ex.P/D. The fact that the accused himself went to call his eldest brother that night has not been deposed to by any prosecution witness in this case, and so it becomes clear that there is no corroboration of this extra judicial confession in the present case. The accused has retracted this confession and although the retracted confession can be acted upon by the Courts provided they are satisfied that the confession was genuine and voluntary vide - Mt. Khuban v. Emperor, AIR 1930 All 29 (E), I think in this case the evidentiary value of this retracted confession is very little in view of the circumstances mentioned by me above. It has been laid down in - Shambhu v. Emperor, AIR 1932 All 228 (F) that the evidentiary value of retracted confession is very little and it is not safe to act on a retracted confession of an accused person unless it is corroborated in material particulars. It has been laid down in - Shambhu v. Emperor, AIR 1932 All 228 (F) that the evidentiary value of retracted confession is very little and it is not safe to act on a retracted confession of an accused person unless it is corroborated in material particulars. In - Emperor v. Chhadammi Lal, AIR 1936 All 373 (G) it has been held that the mere fact that the places were pointed out would not amount to corroboration of any matter in the confession. In view of these rulings and the facts mentioned by me above, I think the extra-judicial confessions relied on by the prosecution cannot be deemed to be genuine and voluntary or true. 23. So far as the confession Ex.P/D is concerned it is established from the evidence of Shri Chongtham Khognedra Singh, O.C.P.W.13 that the accused was sent to the Magistrate Shri O. Niladhwaja Singh from the police custody and not from the jail custody and the learned Magistrate did not think it proper as he should have done, to send the accused in the jail and keep him there for some hours. The evidence of the learned Magistrate shows that he allowed the accused 3 hours time and during this interval he was placed near the other under-trials in the presence of Appellant number of police officials and constables. If the accused is brought from the police custody for his confession being recorded and he is sent again there it cannot be said with certainty that the confession made by him was voluntary and genuine. It has been laid down in - Raggha v. Emperor, AIR 1925 All 627 (FB)(H) that a confession in its normal state is an entirely suspicious article. Retracted confession (as the case here) is worse. The Court should not lose sight of the fact that assuming that the prisoner had been induced to confess he will not unlikely assure the Magistrate that his confession was voluntary, knowing that he will leave the Magistrates presence in the custody of the police and remain in their custody for many days to come. I have already shown above that the confession Ex.P/D is incorrection in at least 2 material particulars mentioned above and in this (Sic) committed the murder with the Dao Ex.P-1. I have already shown above that the confession Ex.P/D is incorrection in at least 2 material particulars mentioned above and in this (Sic) committed the murder with the Dao Ex.P-1. If there had been any truth in this version the investigating officer would have immediately after its recovery, sealed it and it would have been sent to the Chemical Examiner or Serologist, Government of India, for report on the question whether any human blood marks were there or not. The O.C. is definite that the blood marks were there on this Dao at the time of its recovery. But the evidence of Khumukcham Kuber Singh P.W.5 makes it clear that there was no blood mark on this Dao when it was taken in custody by the chaukidar immediately after the alleged murder. As such it is clear that the mention of the Dao Ex.P-1 in the confession Ex.P/D at a very late stage has its own significance. Under the circumstances mentioned above I think this confession Ex.P/D which virtually reiterates all the facts mentioned in Ex.P/C is not genuine or voluntary confession and as it is retracted, I think no conviction can be based on it unless it is corroborated on material particulars by other cogent evidence. The learned Government Advocate has relied on In re Brahmayya, AIR 1949 Mad 817 (I) to show that the retracted confession can be acted upon where reasons given by the accused in withdrawal of confession were palpably false. It has been laid down in this case as a rule, that ordinarily Court should accept corroborative evidence of retracted confession for the conviction of the accused. In the present case the reason for withdrawal by the accused cannot be deemed to be palpably false and so this ruling does not apply to the present case. Reliance has also been placed on - Birey Singh v. State, AIR 1953 All 785 (J) in which it has been held that the evidence of virtual confession of guilt may have to be received with great caution, but judicial confession should be distinct from extra judicial confession and conviction can be based on judicial confession. In the present case I have shown above that the judicial confession Ex.P/D can also not be deemed to be voluntary and genuine and so I am definately of opinion that conviction cannot be based on this confession either. 24. In the present case I have shown above that the judicial confession Ex.P/D can also not be deemed to be voluntary and genuine and so I am definately of opinion that conviction cannot be based on this confession either. 24. The learned Government advocate has urged that as there is cogent circumstantial evidence to corroborate the confessions Ex.P/C and Ex.P/D the accused ought to be convicted on the basis of these 2 confessions read along with the circumstantial evidence. The circumstantial evidence is stated to be that nobody else entered the house that evening or during that night and the only persons inside the house were the accused, his mother and his father. The mother had gone to sleep and so nobody else could commit the murder of Thingnam Lukindra Singh except the present accused I find from the evidence of Pocha alias Ibomcha Singh P.W.2 in his cross-examination that before his mother came out to inform him about this murder he had heard her waking up the accused from sleep in a loud tone which means that the accused was fast asleep at that time. If he was really sleeping it becomes impossible to believe that he committed this murder and he asked his mother to call Pocha alias Ibomcha Singh there immediately before the mother went out and informed Pocha alias Ibomcha about this murder. The next circumstance which goes a long way against the prosecution theory is that the weapon with which this murder was committed was not to be found and the Dao Ex.P-1 which is not blood-stained, could never have been used in committing this murder. The statement of the O.C. to the effect that the Dao Ex.P-1 contained blood mark is not correct as it is effectively rebutted by the statement of the chaukidar and also by his own action by not sending it to the Chemical Examiner or Serologist to the Government of India. Once it is established that the weapon with which Thingnam Lukindra Singh was murdered was taken away by somebody from his house, it does not appear improbable that the assailant used it and escaped with it, as the mother was admittedly sleeping and the present accused also appears to have been sleeping at that time. Once it is established that the weapon with which Thingnam Lukindra Singh was murdered was taken away by somebody from his house, it does not appear improbable that the assailant used it and escaped with it, as the mother was admittedly sleeping and the present accused also appears to have been sleeping at that time. Once the mother found that Thingnam Lukindra Singh was murdered she first aroused the accused and then she infromed her elder son who was outside the house and then the village people including the mother most probably invented the present theory in order to save all others from harassment, and so under the circumstances the fact that the present accused has not admitted to eke out enmity against the prosecution witnesses will not be of any material importance and his conduct in not suggesting any enmity against the prosecution witnesses must be deemed to be straightforward. The statement of Pocha alias Ibomcha Singh P.W.2 to the effect that nobody else entered the house before this murder had been perpetrates cannot be accepted as correct for he was busy in singing and the assailant could easily enter the house from the back door which opened towards outside and so the circumstances on which reliance has been placed by the prosecution could not be deemed to be fully established and the confession Ex.P/D cannot be deemed to have been corroborated in material particulars by cogent evidence. If the confession Ex.P/D had been correct, there could not have been so many differences between the versions given in this confession and extra judicial confession Ex.P/C. I have already mentioned above that no mention has been made of the Dao Ex.P-1 in the extra judicial confession Ex.P/C in which it has been mentioned that only 2 or 3 strokes had been given to the deceased on his neck, but finding that there were 6 injuries on the corpse this version was changed in confession Ex.P/D. The extra judicial confession Ex.P/C further shows that the mother, the accused and his brother consulted before villagers were called and in Ex.P/C the age of the accused is stated to be 17 years, but later on when it was found that accused could not be deemed to be more than 15 years this portion was also dropped in confession Ex.P/D. I am, therefore, definitely of opinion that the confessions relied on by the prosecution in this case are wholly insufficient for the conviction of the accused under S. 302 Penal Code. 25. Thingnam Tnoubi Singh P.W.1, Thingnam Pocha alias Ibomcha Singh P.W.2, Thingnam Tomal Singh P.W.3 and Srimati Leipaklei Devi and other witnesses who have been examined in this case did not see this murder being actually committed and it seems very surprising that even Srimati Leipaklei Devi did not raise a hue and cry on finding that her husband had been murdered. In fact it has been admitted by the witnesses that when they reached the spot she was not weeping. It is further surprising that when Thingnam Anoubi Singh P.W.1 reached the spot, he made no enquiries from the accused and the wife and sons of the deceased as well as other village people of Thingnam Lukindra Singh made absolutely no effort to look at corpse of the deceased immediately after this murder was committed. In fact, in the ordinary course of event Thingnam Leipaklei Devi and her sons could be expected to rush to the injured at once and see if anything could still be done to save him or not, but no such effort was made. All this shows that the responsibility for this murder cannot be placed on the present accused. 26. In fact, in the ordinary course of event Thingnam Leipaklei Devi and her sons could be expected to rush to the injured at once and see if anything could still be done to save him or not, but no such effort was made. All this shows that the responsibility for this murder cannot be placed on the present accused. 26. The F.I.R. Ex.P/A shows that Thingnam Anoubi Singh made absolutely no mention of any extra judicial confession having been made by the present accused on the night in question. In the F.I.R. it was mentioned that the murder has been committed by means of a dagger and not by the Dao Ex.P-1. The Dao Ex.P-1 does not appear to be taken to the police station and if the murder had been committed with this Dao, there would have been blood stains on it as has been stated by the O.C. and it must have been taken to the Thana when the F.I.R. was lodged there. The O.C. recorded the statement of Yumnam Gourmani Singh who wrote out the extra judicial confession Ex.P/C about one and half month after this murder. Khumenjao who went with Anoubi Singh from the meeting after hearing about this murder has not been examined in this case nor has Debo been examined. Under the circumstances the confession relied on by the prosecution in this case cannot be deemed to be sufficient evidence for the conviction of the present accused who is aged only 15 years and who has not been convicted before and as there is no other cogent direct or circumstantial evidence against the present accused, the contention of the learned Government Advocate to the effect that the charge has been established by the circumstantial evidence cannot be accepted. It has been laid in Wills Circumstantial Evidence, Chapter VI: "In order to justify an inference of guilt, the circumstances from which such an inference is sought to be drawn must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation, upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt". Vide Ramkala v. Emperor, AIR 1946 All 191 at p.191 (K) and also Mt. Jahura Bibi v. Emperor, AIR 1931 Cal 11 (L). 27. I, therefore, hold that the charge under S.302 Penal Code has not been established against the present accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Vide Ramkala v. Emperor, AIR 1946 All 191 at p.191 (K) and also Mt. Jahura Bibi v. Emperor, AIR 1931 Cal 11 (L). 27. I, therefore, hold that the charge under S.302 Penal Code has not been established against the present accused beyond all reasonable doubt. I, therefore, give the accused benefit of doubt in this case. All the assessors are of opinion that the present accused is guilty under S.302 Penal Code but for reasons given above, I disagree with their opinion. 28. The result is that I find Thingnam Dhabalo Singh accused not guilty under S.302 Penal Code and acquit him of the offence under the above mentioned section. The accused will be released forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case. 29. The Dao Ex.P-1 will be returned to Thingnam Anoubi Singh P.W.1 after the expiration of the period of appeal and if any appeal is preferred, after this decision. The remaining material exhibits will be destroyed after the expiration of the same period. In the event of any appeal being preferred these material exhibits will not be submitted to the Honble Supreme Court unless ordered to the contrary. Accused acquitted.