JUDGMENT D.P. Uniyal, J. - This is an appeal by Angnu from jail. He has been found guilty under Sec. 309 I. P. C. as also under Sec. 302 I. P. C. and has been sentenced to 3 months' simple imprisonment under Sec. 309, I.P.C. and to life imprisonment under Sec. 302 I. P. C. The sentences under both counts have been ordered to run concurrently. 2. The accused has been charged for the murder of his own son Jagdamba alias Algu, aged 10 years, and his daughter Kumari Prema, aged 5 or 6 years. The accused used to live in village Darabganj within Police Circle Kotwali, District Faizabad. He was married to one Smt. Narain Dei and the two children were born to him from her. Narain Dei was of easy virtue. It is said that she left the house of her husband several times and eloped with different men on each occasion. About a month before the occurrence she ran away with another man leaving her children in the house. While going away she removed all the ornaments and other belongings from the house. The accused was in very straitened circumstances and lived by doing odd jobs at various places. Sometimes he and his children had to go without meals because there was no other source of income to the family. It is said that when his wife left him on this occasion he became completely upset and lost his balance. Finding that he was not able to support himself and his children he decided to end his life and also to murder his children. With this object in view he is said to have left his house at about 2 A.M. on the 14th of October 1957 and jumped into a well along with his two children. The well was situated at a distance of 25 or 30 paces from the house of the accused. It was at a short distance, from the abadi of the village by the side of the road. It had been out of use for a number of years and its water was not even used for irrigation purposes. The prosecution case is that at about 2-30 A.M. when some villager was going along the rasta by the side of the well he heard the voice of a man coming from inside the well. It was a moonlit night. The prosecution case is that at about 2-30 A.M. when some villager was going along the rasta by the side of the well he heard the voice of a man coming from inside the well. It was a moonlit night. The villagers were informed about the matter and they immediately came to the well and peeped into it and enquired as to what the matter was. It is alleged that Angnu appellant, who was inside the well, disclosed his identity. Ram Jag P. W. 3 then brought a rope and basket from the village and took out Angnu from the well. Angnu was, in his senses at that time. On being asked by the people who had gathered at the well he told them that he had deliberately thrown himself into the well along with his children because he could not support himself and his children and wanted to put an end to his life as also the lives of his children. The basket was then lowered into the well and two dead bodies were taken out from it. It appears that the two children had died of drowning. Ram Dular P. W. 2 then rushed to the police station Kotwali and made a report of the occurrence in the early morning of the 14th of October 1957. All the facts leading to the discovery of Angnu and his two dead children in the well were fully recited and it was also stated that the accused had made an extra-judicial confession to the persons who had assembled at the well by stating that he along with his son and daughter had jumped into the well in order to put an end to their lives. The report further went on to say that the informant along with P.Ws. Ram Jag, Jagannath, Rameshwar Das, Kashi Prasad and others had reached the well on being informed that someone was crying for help from inside the well. It was further mentioned in the report that P.W. Chandu Lal had seen the accused going along with his children at about 2 o'clock in the night and that on being asked by Chandu Lal he had told the latter that he was going out to answer the call of nature. The Second Officer, Sri Hamidullah Khan P.W. 7, was present at the police station when the report was lodged. The Second Officer, Sri Hamidullah Khan P.W. 7, was present at the police station when the report was lodged. He immediately proceeded to the scene of occurrence and held the inquest over the two dead bodies and sent them to the mortuary for post-mortem examination. The investigating Officer prepared a site plan of the well. He took the rope and the basket into his custody and handed them over the supurdgi of Ram Jag P.W. Thereafter he recorded the statements of the witnesses. 3. The post-mortem examination on the two dead bodies was conducted by Dr. S. S. Misra, Civil Surgeon, Faizabad, on the 14th of October 1957 between 4-30 P. M. and 5 P. M. His opinion was that death of the persons was due to asphyxia because of drowning. 4. The accused pleaded not guilty to both the charges framed against him. It was admitted by him that his wife was of loose morals and had eloped with several persons from time to time. It was also admitted by him that on the last occasion she had taken away all the belongings of the house and that she had left the two children behind. He alleged that he had been falsely implicated due to enmity with the witnesses. In the court of the committing magistrate he stated that he had gone to ease himself and that since his children were all alone in the house so he also took them along with him. When he was about to ease himself some badmashes came there, tied up his hands, and removed the cash that he had in his pocket and pushed his two children into the well. In reply to the question as to why he had been prosecuted, he stated that this was because he had been taken out from the well. When he was examined in the court of sessions he changed his story and stated that he had gone to ease himself at about 2-30 A. M. in the night and had taken his children along with him because there was no one else in the house to look after them. When he was easing himself the children started playing near the well and they accidentally fell into the well. The accused then got upset and to save the lives of his children he himself jumped into the well. 5. When he was easing himself the children started playing near the well and they accidentally fell into the well. The accused then got upset and to save the lives of his children he himself jumped into the well. 5. The case for the prosecution, in so far as the charge under Sec. 302, I. P. C. is concerned, rests on circumstantial evidence and the admitted case of the parties that the accused, as also the two dead bodies of his children, were recovered from the well at one and the same time. The case of the prosecution is further supported by the extra-judicial confession alleged to have been made by the accused to the witnesses who had taken out the accused and the two dead bodies from the well. Lastly, there is the conduct of the accused in going out to ease himself in the company of his children and their dead bodies being subsequently found in the well. * * * 6. We propose to consider the circumstantial evidence in the case in order to find out if that evidence is of a conclusive character and as such fully establishes the guilt of the accused. There is the medical evidence of the Civil Surgeon to the effect that the death of the two children was due to asphyxia. It is also admitted by the accused that his children died of drowning in the well. Then we have the statement of Chandu Lal P. W. 4 who is a neighbour of the accused. He stated that at about 1 A. M. in the night he went out to make water and saw the accused going from his house with his daughter in his lap and his son by his side. It was a moonlit night and he recognised the accused and enquired from him as to where he was going. The accused told the witness that he was going out to ease himself and that he was also taking his children because they also wanted to ease. The statement of this witness was not challenged in cross-examination. It was not even hinted to him that he had not seen the accused going out of his house in the early hours at about 1 A. M. as alleged by him. The statement of this witness was not challenged in cross-examination. It was not even hinted to him that he had not seen the accused going out of his house in the early hours at about 1 A. M. as alleged by him. In fact the accused himself stated in his statement in the court of sessions that he had gone out at about 2-30 A. M. to ease himself and had taken his children with him. The evidence given by P. W. Chandu Lal finds support from the statement of the accused himself. We have no hesitation in holding that the statement of Chandu Lal is consistent with the facts and that it has a ring of truth about it. 7. The next piece of evidence against the accused consists of the extra-judicial confession alleged to have been made by him to P. W. 2 Ram Dularey, P. W. 3 Ran Jag, P. W. 4 Chandu Lal and P. W. 5 Jagannath at the time when he was taken out of the well by these witnesses and was asked as to how he had fallen into the well. These witnesses deposed that the accused stated to them that he had thrown himself into the well along with his children because his wife had eloped and taken away all the belongings of the house. No animus was shown against any of these witnesses and there is nothing in the prosecution evidence from which it can be inferred that they had any oblique motive to implicate the accused by concocting a case against him. The extra-judicial confession deposed to by these witnesses is fully corroborated by the circumstances of the case. The prosecution evidence shows that there was a Pukka parapet wall around the well which was about a cubit high. It is no doubt true that a portion of the parapet wall had fallen off but it is not believable that the children could have gone towards the side of the well for easing themselves. In the first place, the version given out by the accused that he had gone in the company of his children to ease himself at dead of night is itself highly improbable. If the children had gone with their father to ease themselves the accused would have taken due care that they did not go far from the place where the accused himself was easing. If the children had gone with their father to ease themselves the accused would have taken due care that they did not go far from the place where the accused himself was easing. In the second place, even assuming that the children had accidentally fallen into the well it is unbelievable that the accused would have thrown himself into the well instead of going to the village and asking the villagers to rescue the children from the well. The story set up by the accused is not only improbable but fantastic. In his statement before the committing magistrate it was not the case of the accused that the children had strayed into the well. There he tried to make out that some badmashes had pushed his children out of enmity into the well and had relieved him of the cash which he possessed. It was for the first time in the court of sessions that he invented a new story in order to make out a plausible case of self-defence. We have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution case that the accused jumped into the well along with his children in order to put an end to his own life and the lives of his children, is true and is fully borne out by the extra-judicial confession made by the accused and the circumstances of the case, 8. It was argued on behalf of the defence in the court below that the oral extrajudicial confession made by the accused to the witnesses was not reliable inasmuch as the witnesses could not have reproduced the actual words uttered by the accused. All the four witnesses to whom the extrajudicial confession was made have consistently deposed that the accused had told them that he along with his two children had jumped into the well in order to put an end to his life and the lives of his children because his wife had run away after taking all his belongings, and he could not support himself and his children. The witnesses were cross-examined but it was not suggested to anyone of them that the accused had not made the extra-judicial confession to which they deposed. The witnesses were also not cross-examined on the point that the words uttered by the accused were different from what they had stated. The witnesses were cross-examined but it was not suggested to anyone of them that the accused had not made the extra-judicial confession to which they deposed. The witnesses were also not cross-examined on the point that the words uttered by the accused were different from what they had stated. We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the statements of these witnesses were reliable and that they had correctly reproduced the actual words used by the accused. 9. In Nur Ali v. The Crown, AIR 1924 Lahore 498 Sir Shadi Lal while considering the question as to whether an oral extra-judicial confession should be believed if the words used by the accused are not reproduced with sufficient exactness in court, held as follows:- "The duty of the court, before which an extra-judicial confession, not incorporated in a document, is relied upon; is to scrutinise the whole of the material before it, and then to decide whether there is sufficient evidence to prove the confession.......... a mere general statement to the effect that the prisoner had confessed is too uncertain a foundation to sustain a finding against him, and I consider that the trial Court ought to ascertain, as far as possible, the very words spoken by an accused who is said to have confessed. There may, however, be cases in which the evidence gives the substance though not the actual words of the statement made by the accused, and if that evidence is reliable, there is no rule of law which precludes the Court from holding that the confession has been proved." 10. With great respect we concur with the above observation. In the present case the actual words spoken by the accused were reproduced in court by the witnesses in their evidence. It was not a case where a general statement to the effect that the prisoner had confessed was made by the witnesses. There could be no doubt whatsoever as to the statement which the accused made to these witnesses, and which was to the effect that he had jumped into the well along with his children to kill himself and his children. These words could not be said to be vague or ambiguous. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the extra-judicial confession had been fully proved in the case. 11. These words could not be said to be vague or ambiguous. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the extra-judicial confession had been fully proved in the case. 11. It was next urged that no conviction could be based on the extra-judicial confession unless it was corroborated by other independent evidence, particularly in a case where the accused resiles from his confession or does not admit it. In the case of confessions which are reduced to writing and which are subsequently resiled from by the accused, the rule is that the court may act upon the confession if in its opinion the general trend of the confession is substantial by some evidence which would tally with what is contained in the confession. Subramania Goundan v. State of Madras, A.I.R. 1958 SC 66. In a case where the court has to decide whether the confession made by the accused in a criminal case has been proved, the law requires that the court must be satisfied that the confession made was free and voluntary and that it was not brought about by the influence of hope or fear. If the prosecution satisfies the court on these points and it is held that the confession was a free and voluntary act of the accused and that it was not induced by any hope or fear or coercion, then it must be regarded as a genuine confession which may be used against the accused at the trial. 12. In The Queen v. Thomson, 1893-2 Q.B. 12(A) Cave, J. after considering various authorities stated as follows:- "Before any confession can be received in evidence in a criminal case, it must be shown to have been voluntarily made; for, to adopt the somewhat inflated language of Eyre, C. B. `a confession forced from the mind by the flattery of hope, or by the torture of fear, comes in so questionable a shape, when it is to be considered as the evidence of guilt, that no credit ought to be given to it, and, therefore, it is rejected.' The King v. Warickshall, (1793) 1 Leach 263, 4th Ed. (B). (B). The material question consequently is whether the confession has been obtained by the influence of hope or fear; and the evidence to this point being in its nature preliminary, is addressed to the judge, who will require the prosecutor to show affirmatively, to his satisfaction, that the statement was not made under the influence of an improper inducement and who, in the event of any doubt subsisting on this head, will reject the confession." 13. Cave, J. laid the following test for deciding the admissibility of the confession. He has stated that the question which has to be asked is - "Is it proved affirmatively that the confession was free and voluntary - that is, was it preceded by any inducement to make a statement held out by a person in authority?" 14. We think that the test laid down by Cave, J. in the case cited above had been fully satisfied in the present case. The evidence adduced by the prosecution in support of the oral extra-judicial confession came from an independent source and the witnesses deposed to the actual words spoken by the accused to them soon after he had been taken out from the well. The circumstances already alluded to by us clearly corroborate the testimony of the witnesses. There is no question of the witnesses holding out any threat or inducement to the accused at the time when he made the confession to them. It was not suggested by the accused to the witnesses that they had held out any promise to him or coerced him into making the confession. The circumstances of the case clearly establish that the accused had himself voluntarily given out the true facts to the witnesses and, therefore, the confession to which the witnesses deposed was, in our opinion, wholly reliable. The court below was fully justified in holding that the confession had been proved and that it was reliable. 15. We have given anxious consideration to the facts and the circumstances of the case and we have no doubt in our mind that the prosecution has fully proved the case against the appellant. 16. We accordingly uphold his convictions and sentences under Secs. 302 and 309 I. P. C. and dismiss the appeal.