JUDGMENT : Das, J. - This is an appeal by the State against the order dated 13-7-1962 of the Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj-Keonjhar, acquitting the Respondent of an offence u/s 302, Indian Penal Code. 2. On a Thursday, 28-12-1962, Pelang (deceased) the mother of P.W. 1 went to fetch fuel from the forest with an axe. She did not return until evening. So P.W. 1 her son went out in search of her to the forest followed by his aunt (p.w. 3). When P.W. 1 was returning in disappointment, he was told by P.W. 3 that his mother had been killed and thrown into the forest. Both of them went and found the dead body lying with bleeding injuries. Thereafter first information (ext. 1) was lodged at the police station naming one Bir Singh, husband of P.W. 9, to be a suspect, but the name of the accused was not given therein. On the following day, the sub-inspector reached the village and made necessary investigation. Thereafter; the present Respondent along with one Jagabandhu were charge-sheeted under Sections 302/34, Indian Penal Code. The committing court, however, discharged accused Jagabandhu and sent up the Appellant to the court of Sessions for trial u/s 302, Indian Penal Code. 3. There are no eye-witnesses to the occurrence and the case rests substantially on the extra-judicial confession said to have been made by the accused before p.ws. 4, 5, 6 and 8 who are alleged to have gone to the jungle near about the time of occurrence and the recovery of the Tangi (M.O.I) said to have been made at the instance of the accused. 4. The motive for the murder is said to he that the accused suspected the deceased to have practised witchcraft on members of his family and some of his cattle. 5. The plea of the accused was one of a denial. He also denied to have made any extra judicial concession or the recovery of the axe to have been made at his instance. According to him this case has been falsely foisted on him by P.W. 4 and his people who are inimical to him on account of the fact that the accused married the widowed sister-in-law of P.W. 4 Madhu Naik. 6. The learned Sessions Judge refused to accept as reliable the evidence of the witnesses p.ws. According to him this case has been falsely foisted on him by P.W. 4 and his people who are inimical to him on account of the fact that the accused married the widowed sister-in-law of P.W. 4 Madhu Naik. 6. The learned Sessions Judge refused to accept as reliable the evidence of the witnesses p.ws. 4, 5, 6 and 8, as he was of the view that they were all related and were hostile to the accused. He also found the evidence regarding the recovery of the axe to be discrepant. According to him the evidence on the whole was so unsatisfactory that a conviction cannot be based on such evidence. He thus acquitted the accused. It is against this order of acquittal the present appeal has been filed by the State. 7. That there was no motive for the murder is clear from the evidence of p.ws. 1 and 14. According to P.W. 1 (son of the deceased) he did not suspect even the accused to have committed the murder. From the F.I.R. as also from his evidence it appears that he suspected the Bir Singh to be the assailant as he was threatening to kill his mother alleging her to be a witch. P.W. 14 is the daughter-in-law of the deceased. According to her the accused was once threatening that he would kill the witch who was responsible for the death of his caws and buffaloes. But the accused did not name the deceased as one such witch. She claimed to have lodged an information at the police station regarding such threat of the accused. But it is not understood as to why she should lodge an information at the police station without knowing definitely the accused naming her mother-in-law as the witch it appears from the evidence of the sub-inspector (p.w. 15) that this witness lodged no information about the story of witchcraft, and she did not say anything before him in this connection. Even if the evidence of p.ws. 1 and 14 is accepted, there is nothing to show that the accused suspected the deceased to be a witch and threatened to kill her. Thus, the motive for the murder is not established. No doubt, the mere absence of motive is not enough if the case is otherwise made out. 8. Even if the evidence of p.ws. 1 and 14 is accepted, there is nothing to show that the accused suspected the deceased to be a witch and threatened to kill her. Thus, the motive for the murder is not established. No doubt, the mere absence of motive is not enough if the case is otherwise made out. 8. As stated above, there is admittedly no eye-witness to the occurrence and the prosecution relies upon the evidence of p.ws. 4, 5, 6 and 8 before whom the accused admitted to have killed the deceased and he was found running away from the place where the deceased said to have been killed. The learned Sessions Judge refused to believe the evidence of these witnesses mainly on the ground they are close relations and were hostile to the accused. P.W. 4 admitted that the accused had kept the wife of his younger brother. P.W. 3 said that the accused has married the widowed sister-in-law of p. 2., 4 Madhu. P.We. 4, 5 and 6 Dire close relations cannot be doubted. P.W. 5 is the wife of P.W. 4 and P.W. 6 is a niece of P.W. 8, a brother's wife of P.W. 4. a part from their close relationship, it appears from their evidence that they did not disclose this matter to anybody in the village until they stated the incident to the police three days after. According to P.W. 4 when he along with p.ws. 6, 7, g and 9 was returning from the forest at about the sunset time, they found the accused came running and he voluntarily disclosed before them that he had finished with the deceased and that they should not disclose this matter to anybody in the village. Again that night the accused went to him and warned him not to disclose this matter to others. So out of fear he did not disclose this incident to anybody until the following Sunday to the Thana Babu when he went to the village. The witness admitted in his cross-examination that the accused did not offer any threat either at the time when he first told them in the judge or subsequently when he met him in the village. The witness admitted in his cross-examination that the accused did not offer any threat either at the time when he first told them in the judge or subsequently when he met him in the village. If the accused made a statement confessing his guilt and did not offer any threat, the was no reason why the witness did not disclose this story to anybody in the village until the police officer came to investigate the matter. There is absolutely no reason why the accused should come forward to make a voluntary statement confessing his guilt before these witnesses. From the evidence of P.W. 3 the aunt of P.W. 1 it appears that she met the p.ws. 4 to 9 on the night of the occurrence and also on the following morning. But they did not say a word about it to her. This conduct of p.ws. 4, 5, 6 and 8 in not disclosing the matter immediately and deferring the disclosure for about three days does not appear to be free from suspicion. According to the evidence of P.W. 4, p.ws. 7 and 9 also accompanied them. Both these witnesses were declared hostile. It may be remembered that P.W. 9 is nobody than the wife of Bir Singh whose name found place in the F.I.R. as one of the suspects. The evidence of other witnesses does not support the story of extra judicial confession as claimed by P.W. 4 to have been made by the accused before them. The learned Sessions Judge refused to act upon this state of evidence to record a conviction of the accused. 9. Mr. Acharyya, learned Counsel for the Respondent, contended that the extra judicial confession, by its very nature, is a weak piece of evidence and has to be scrutinised with great caution. He relied upon a Full Bench decision of the Madhya Bharat High Court reported in Fakir Chand v. State AIR 1955 M.B. 119 , where it was held that generally speaking the evidence of extra judicial confession is a very weak kind of evidence and has to be scrutinised minutely and received with great caution and in dealing with an extra judicial confession, it should be borne in mind that a witness may easily fabricate either wholly or in part a confessional statement and it is very difficult to expose its falsity. The same view was also expressed in a case reported in AIR 1958 Madhya Pradesh 3802. No doubt an extra judicial confession, if made voluntarily, can be relied upon by the court along with other evidence in convicting the accused. But the confession has to be proved just like any other fact. The value of the evidence as to confession just like any other evidence depends upon the veracity of the witnesses to whom it is made. Once the evidence of p.ws. 4, 5, 6 and 8 is rejected as not being reliable or in any case not to be free from suspicion, the value of the evidence of confession comes practically to nothing. It is also well settled that in cases of extra judicial confessions some material corroboration is required to connect the accused with the crime. In a case reported in Ratna Goud v. State AIR 1959 S.C. 19, their Lordships held that usually and as a matter of caution courts require some material corroboration to an extra judicial confession a corroboration which connects the accused persons with the crime in question. 10. The question therefore is whether there is any corroboration to the alleged extra judicial confession of the accused in this case. The prosecution sought to prove the recovery of M.O.I. to have been made at the instance of the accused. The learned Sessions Judge did not feel inclined to accept the evidence on this point as the seizure witness (p.w. 10) said that he had not seen wherefrom the axe was recovered. P.W. 10 has frankly admitted in his cross-examination that he was unable to say wherefrom the axe was recovered. No doubt, there were some blood-stains on M.O.I. but the serologist was not able to trace out their origin, P.W. 13 was unable to identify whether M.O.I. belonged to the accused, but according to him the accused had an axe like that. From the evidence of P.W. 1, it appears that the deceased had been to the jungle with an axe. It is not clear what happened to that axe. Thus, the evidence is not very clear on this point to connect the accused with the crime. 11. That apart it is not understood why the other accused Jagabandhu was at all charged along with the present Appellant, if according to the evidence of p.ws. It is not clear what happened to that axe. Thus, the evidence is not very clear on this point to connect the accused with the crime. 11. That apart it is not understood why the other accused Jagabandhu was at all charged along with the present Appellant, if according to the evidence of p.ws. 4, 5, 6 and 8 only the Appellant made the confession and was found near the place of occurrence. It is also not clear from the record as to what happened so far as Bir Singh is concerned whose name did find place in the First Information Report as one of the suspects. 12. In view of this state of evidence, it must be held that the order of acquittal is justified and I do not find any reason to interfere with the said order. There is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. Barman, J. 13. I agree. 14. Appeal dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed