JUDGMENT S. K. Desai, J. :- The Appellant before us was original accused No. 1 in Sessions Case No. 180 of 1969, which was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay. In that Sessions case there were two accused; accused No. 1 was Prabhakar Narayan Upadhyay, being the Appellant before us, and accused No. 2 was one Sushila alias Sharda w/o Suryakant Parab. The two accused were charged before the learned Additional Sessions Judge under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and it was alleged that the two, in furtherance of their common intention, had intentionally caused the death of one Ram Bali Ramkuber Mishra between the evening of 12th November and the morning of 13th November 1968 at the Juhu-Beach, Santacruz, Bombay. In the alternative, the Appellant was charged under Section 302 I.P.C., and it was alleged that the intentionally caused the death of the said Ram Bali Mishra by stabbing him with a knife at the time and place mentioned above, and accused No. 2 Sushila Suryakant Parab, in the alternative, was charged under Section 302 read with Section 109 I.P.C., and it was alleged that she had intentionally aided and abetted the Appellant Prabhakar in the commission of the said offence of murder and that the said offence was committed in consequence of her abetment. 2. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the Appellant caused the death of Ram Bali by stabbing him. As far as accused No. 2 Sushila was concerned, he held that the evidence on record gave rise to a suspicion against her, but that she was entitled to the benefit of doubt and hence he ordered her to be acquitted. The Appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Being aggrieved by the said order of conviction and sentence, the Appellant has preferred this appeal before us. 3. The prosecution case may be stated : The Appellant was originally staying at village Tale in District Kolaba, and after passing the S.S.C. examination he joined the army. Being aggrieved by the said order of conviction and sentence, the Appellant has preferred this appeal before us. 3. The prosecution case may be stated : The Appellant was originally staying at village Tale in District Kolaba, and after passing the S.S.C. examination he joined the army. Subsequently he obtained a discharge from the armed forces and was employed as a Clerk in the Worli Health Scheme run by the Central Government, Sushila was married to one Suryakant Parab (P.W. 7) in or about 1958 and both of them were staying together with their two daughters at Byculla. Suryakant Parab was working in the Films Division, which is also a department of the Government of India and therefore, he and his family were entitled to get medical aid at one of the Health Scheme Centres maintained by the Central Government. In these circumstances, Sushila was going to the Worli Health Scheme for taking treatment. At this time she became acquainted with the appellant. At this time the Appellant was residing with one of his brothers at Goregaon. The acquaintance between the Appellant and Sushila developed into a sort of intimacy, and it continued even after the Appellant was transferred from Worli to a similar section in the Nanavati Hospital at Vile Parle. Sushila and the Appellant used to meet each other whilst the Appellant was working at Worli, and their meetings continued even after his transfer to Vile Parle. 4. Sushila has a brother named Shankar Sitaram Salunke. In 1960 or 1962 Shankar Salunke was residing in the room of one Shantaram Raut (P.W. 5) with his two daughters. Sushila used to visit her brother Shankar Salunke occasionally. At that time, according to the prosecution, she became acquainted with the watchman of the building called "Gopal Bhawan," at Princess Street Kalbadevi where Shankar was staying. The name of that watchman was Rambali Ramkuber Mishra, who is the deceased in this case. It is alleged that Suryakant Parab and his wife, accused No. 2, came to be on friendly terms with this watchman Ram Bali. It is further alleged that Suryakant had even taken a loan of Rs. 400/- from Ram Bali and Ram Bali used to visit their house at Byculla. It is also alleged that Sushila also used to visit Ram Bali's room, which was under the staircase on the ground floor of Gopal Bhawan. It is further alleged that Suryakant had even taken a loan of Rs. 400/- from Ram Bali and Ram Bali used to visit their house at Byculla. It is also alleged that Sushila also used to visit Ram Bali's room, which was under the staircase on the ground floor of Gopal Bhawan. It may be mentioned that Shantaram Raut's room, which was for some time occupied by Shankar Salunke, is also on the ground floor of the same building. 5. Shantaram Raut (P.W. 5) had seen Sushila going to the room of Ram Bali and had reported this to Suryakant Parab. Suryakant however, did not take any steps since he had some regard for Ram Bali who was an elderly person. Later on, however, he found that Sushila was leaving the house often without informing him (her husband). The relations between Suryakant Parab and his wife Sushila became strained, and on 3rd October 1968 there was a quarrel between the two. On the 4th October 1968 Sushila left the matrimonial home when her husband had gone away for his work, leaving behind a chit stating that she was permanently leaving the house and was not intending to return. According to the prosecution, thereafter Sushila went to the Appellant and from that time onwards the Appellant was trying to make some arrangement for her accommodation. It may be mentioned that in the meanwhile the Appellant had come to stay as a paying guest in the house of one Manohar Borse (P.W. 16). He kept Sushila for a day at Borse's house, but thereafter he took her to his brother's place at Karjat. According to the prosecution, one Ramchandra Nakte (P.W. 12) was an intimate friend of the Appellant and was award of the intimacy between the Appellant and Sushila. The Appellant, after keeping Sushila at Karjat, used to visit her on week-ends. This continued for some time. Suryakant in the meanwhile was searching for his wife and had even filed a missing person report at the Agripada Police Station. On inquiries. Suryakant learnt that Sushila had been moving in the company of the Appellant with whom she had become intimate. 6. According to the prosecution, in October, 1968 Ramchandra Nakte along with the Appellant and Sushila had gone to Museum where Ram Bali Mishra had been called. On inquiries. Suryakant learnt that Sushila had been moving in the company of the Appellant with whom she had become intimate. 6. According to the prosecution, in October, 1968 Ramchandra Nakte along with the Appellant and Sushila had gone to Museum where Ram Bali Mishra had been called. The Appellant and Ramchandra Nakte waited on the footpath on the other side of the road, whilst Sushila met Ram Bali in the garden and it is alleged that at that time Sushila managed to obtain Rs. 150/- from Ram Bali. By the end of October it had become impossible for Sushila to continue to stay at Karjat and, therefore, the Appellant had to find accommodation for her. Accordingly they went to Dattatraya Lodging and Boarding House at Goregaon where the Appellant reserved on family room for the stay of himself and Sushila. The Appellant took Sushila to this Lodge on the 1st November 1968 and he had to pay Rs. 185/- as lodging charges for the whole months of November 1968. It was alleged by the prosecution that the Appellant thus was in need of money to meet the expenses of himself and Sushila. It may be mentioned that at Dattatraya Lodge at Goregaon the Appellant and Sushila were staying as Mr. and Mrs. Ramesh Sakharam Kulkarni, which name had been given by the Appellant to the proprietor of the Lodge. 7. It was alleged by the prosecution that on the 12th November, 1968 Sushila gave a telephone call to Ram Bali and asked Ram Bali to see her and the Appellant at Nanavati Hospital on that evening. Ram Bali left Gopal Bhuwan in the morning of 12th November and thereafter was not seen alive. The prosecution case was that Ram Bali went to Nanavati Hospital in the evening and inquired about Sushila. The Appelland then told Ram Bali that they should go on the Juhu Road, where they found Sushila sitting in a garden. It was alleged that from that garden the three of them went to Juhu Beach where they were sitting till it became dark. At this time Sushila got up and started going towards the sea water on the pretext of washing her chappals which she claimed were soiled. Ram Bali offered to accompany her as she was going alone. It was alleged that from that garden the three of them went to Juhu Beach where they were sitting till it became dark. At this time Sushila got up and started going towards the sea water on the pretext of washing her chappals which she claimed were soiled. Ram Bali offered to accompany her as she was going alone. It is alleged that as both were going towards the sea water, the Appellant stabbed Ram Bali with a knife. It is alleged that a number of blows were given on the chest; Ram Bali showed some resistance, but when further blow or blows were given Ram Bali started shouting and attempted to run away. At this time the Appellant got panicky, joined Sushila and both of them then ran away. It is alleged by the prosecution that later on that night the Appellant phoned Nanavati Hospital and inquired of the Telephone Operator, one Solanki (P.W. 15), whether any person being the victim of a stabbing case had been admitted to the hospital, Solanki made inquiries in the ward and informed the Appellant who had given his name to the Telephone Operator, that no such person had been admitted to the hospital that night. It was similarly alleged by the prosecution that on the next morning Sushila telephoned Varjivan Shah (P.W. 11), a partner of a Chemist's firm called M/s. R. N. Kapadia and Co., situate near Gopal Bhuwan, and asked for Ram Bali. 8. The dead body of Ram Bali was discovered lying on the Juhu Beach in the early morning of 13th November 1968. It was discovered by persons who used to go for running on the Beach. One of these persons went to the Juhu Beach Police Chowkie and gave information about the body to constable Ramkant Dhoke (P.W. 2) who was posted there. Constable Dhoke went to the place where the body was lying and after seeing the dead body gave information on phone to the Santacruz Police Station. Inspector Barse accompanied by other Police Officers came to the spot and thereafter a panchanama of the dead body was made in the presence of two panchas. The dead body was then sent to the J.J. Hospital Morgue. 9. In the meanwhile, at Princess Street Ram Bali's absence had been noticed. Inspector Barse accompanied by other Police Officers came to the spot and thereafter a panchanama of the dead body was made in the presence of two panchas. The dead body was then sent to the J.J. Hospital Morgue. 9. In the meanwhile, at Princess Street Ram Bali's absence had been noticed. His nephew Jamnaprasad Mishra (P.W. 4) made a search for Ram Bali and ultimately lodged a missing report at the Azad Maidan Police Station. In the afternoon or evening this Jamnaprasad and Shantaram Raut, who was Ram Bali's neighbour were taking tea in a hotel; at this time they heard somebody discussing a news item in the news paper mentioning that the dead body of one North Indian was found on the Juhu Beach. Jamnaprasad and Shantaram Raut then contracted the Azad Maidan Police Station and thereafter the Santacruz Police Station and were instructed to go to the J.J. Hospital Morgue. At the J.J. Hospital Morgue Jamnaprasad saw the dead body and identified it as that of his uncle Ram Bali. By this time, it may be mentioned, post mortem had already been done on the dead body by Dr. Limaya (P.W. 25) who was working as R.M.O. attached to the Northcote Police Hospital. 10. On the information given by constable Dhoke. Inspector Barse had already registered the offence and the Police had commenced investigation. Ram Bali's room was searched on 14th November 1968 after opening it with one of the keys found on the dead body. At that time only certain papers and documents were found. Statements of some witnesses such as Suryakant Parab (P.W. 7). Shantaram Raut (P.W. 5) and some others were recorded. On 18th November 1968 P.S.I. Sawant (P.W. 26) made inquiries at Nanavati Hospital about the Appellant. As a result of these inquiries he learnt that the Appellant had not attended to his duties at the hospital on that day. He then contacted witness Ramchandra Nakte. The statement of Ramchandra Nakte was recorded on the 19th November 1968. According to the prosecution, the Appellant had met Ramchandra Nakte on the 13th November 1968 and had disclosed to him that he had committed the murder of a Bhayya who was working as a watchman at Princess Street. He then contacted witness Ramchandra Nakte. The statement of Ramchandra Nakte was recorded on the 19th November 1968. According to the prosecution, the Appellant had met Ramchandra Nakte on the 13th November 1968 and had disclosed to him that he had committed the murder of a Bhayya who was working as a watchman at Princess Street. It may be mentioned that during the course of the investigation the Police had also made inquiries with Manohar Borse (P.W. 16) in whose house the Appellant had been staying as a paying guest. On 16th November 1969 Manohar Borse had secured the address of the Appellant from Ramchandra Nakte and had met the Appellant at the Dattatraya Lodging and Boarding House at Goregaon on the next day. Manohar Borse had informed the Appellant that the police had been inquiring about him. It appears that the Appellant then decided to leave the Lodge and to out of Bombay. For that purpose he took the help of Ramchandra Nakte and two other persons viz. Sudhakar Dixit (P.W. 13) and Arthur Pareira (P.W. 14). Sudhakar Dixit had been a co-worker with the Appellant at the Worli Health Scheme Arthur Pareira was a friend of Ramchandra Nakte. On the 17th November 1968 the Appellant, it is alleged, confessed to these two also that he had committed the murder of one Bhayya. On the 17th he asked for a loan from these two witnesses but they were not in a position to render the necessary financial assistance. It was then decided that the Appellant should pawn his wrist watch and secure a loan. The wrist watch, it is alleged, was handed over to Ramchandra Nakte and he pledged it with a money-lender at Mahim and obtained Rs. 25/-, which amount was handed over to the Appellant. It is alleged that thereafter the Appellant, Sushila and Ramchandra Nakte went to the V.T. Railway Station. According to the prosecution the Appellant intended to go with Sushila to Jhansi. However, it was found that he did not have enough money for the fare for himself and Sushila, and ultimately both boarded the train without procuring the necessary tickets. Ramchandra Nakte thereafter returned home. According to the prosecution the Appellant intended to go with Sushila to Jhansi. However, it was found that he did not have enough money for the fare for himself and Sushila, and ultimately both boarded the train without procuring the necessary tickets. Ramchandra Nakte thereafter returned home. The Appellant and Sushila, however, did not stay at Jhansi for long and returned to Bombay within a few days, and it is alleged that thereafter they went to Panvel and stayed at Panvel with one Smt. Shakuntala Patankar (P.W. 21). Investigation was in progress, and on 27-11-1968 P.S.I. Jadhav along with the staff and witness Ramchandra Nakte went to Panvel, P.S.I. Jadhav went to Panvel and brought the Appellant and Sushila to Bombay and they were produced at the Santacruz Police Station. 11. On 28th November 1968 the room of Ram Bali was again searched and at that time currency notes of about Rs. 3400/- were found in two boxes. It was further alleged that on that very day Sushila made a statement, pursuant to which a knife was discovered in a heap of bricks in front of that room; the same was taken charge of under a panchanama. It may be mentioned that the statement of Sudhakar Dixit and Arthur Pareira were recorded on the 1st and 2nd November 1968 respectively. 12. After completing the investigation P.S.I. Sawant submitted a charge-sheet against the two accused before the learned Presidency Magistrate, 21st Court. Bandra, Bombay, on 17th March 1969. The Learned Presidency Magistrate committed the two accused to stand their trail in the Court of Sessions at Bombay on 8th November 1969. As stated earlier, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the Appellant under S. 302 I.P.C. but gave the benefit of the doubt to accused No. 2 Sushila and acquitted her. 13. The defence of the two accused was one of denial Accused No. 2 Sushila admitted that she was occasionally visiting her brother Shankar Salunke, but denied that she had any acquaintance or contract with the deceased Ram Bali. The Appellant in so many words did not allege that he did not know Ram Bali at all, but denied all contact with Ram Bali, as had been deposed to by Ramchandra Nakte. In his statement under S. 342 Cr.P.C. the Appellant stated that he became acquainted with Sushila when she was attending the Worli Health Scheme. The Appellant in so many words did not allege that he did not know Ram Bali at all, but denied all contact with Ram Bali, as had been deposed to by Ramchandra Nakte. In his statement under S. 342 Cr.P.C. the Appellant stated that he became acquainted with Sushila when she was attending the Worli Health Scheme. According to the Appellant, on 4th October 1968 Sushila left her husband and then came to him. According to him, he took her to Khalapur thereafter and brought her back to Bombay on 3rd November 1968. Thereafter both of them resided in the Dattatraya Lodging and Boarding House at Goregaon till 16th November 1968 as Mr. and Mrs. Kulkarni. According to the Appellant, on 16th November 1968 he received a telegram from his brother at Panvel that he was seriously ill. The Appellant then decided to go to Panvel. Sushila insisted that she would also accompany him because she did not want to stay alone in the Lodge. According to the Appellant, in these circumstances he took Sushila with him to Panvel and they were both staying in the house of Smt. Shakuntala Patankar as her guests till 27th November 1968 on which date they were arrested by the police who had come to Panvel. In his statement the Appellant denied that after Sushila had left her matrimonial home, her husband Suryakant Parab had contacted the Appellant or that the Appellant had told Suryakant Parab that he was in love with Sushila who reciprocated the love. The Appellant admitted that he and Ramchandra Nakte are friends and that they had studied together in the High School at Tale. He further admitted that he had introduced Sudhakar Dixit to Ramchandra Nakte and that in turn Ramchandra Nakte had introduced Arthur Pareira to him (the Appellant). The Appellant did not admit that he was meeting Ramchandra Nakte every day as Ramchandra Nakte had deposed to. He stated that he had gone to Ramchandra Nakte once or twice. The Appellant admitted that it was Ramchandra Nakte who had arranged for the Appellant's stay at Manohar Borse's house as a paying guest. The Appellant also admitted that he had introduced Sushila to Ramchandra Nakte. The Appellant further admitted that he had taken Sushila to the house of Manohar Borse where they had stayed for one night. The Appellant admitted that it was Ramchandra Nakte who had arranged for the Appellant's stay at Manohar Borse's house as a paying guest. The Appellant also admitted that he had introduced Sushila to Ramchandra Nakte. The Appellant further admitted that he had taken Sushila to the house of Manohar Borse where they had stayed for one night. The Appellant denied that he had gone with Sushila and Ramchandra Nakte to Museum where Sushila obtained Rs. 150/- from Ram Bali after sitting with him in the garden. He further denied that he and Sushila had gone to Karjat for 2 or 3 weeks. As stated earlier, the Appellant admitted that from the beginning of November till 17th, he and Sushila had lived in Dattatraya-Lodging and Boarding House at Goregaon as Mr. and Mrs. Kulkarni, but denied that Ramchandra Nakte had come and stayed at the above lodge for two days as the Appellant's guest. The Appellant denied that he had made any extra-judicial confession to Ramchandra Nakte or to Sudhakar Dixit or to Arthur Pareira. Similarly he denied that he had given his wrist watch for pawning or that a loan was secured on that wrist watch. He denied that he has gone to Jhansi along with Sushila. It was alleged by the prosecution that the Appellant had purchased a knife from a knifevendor at Andheri, which was denied by him. He denied that the knife (Article O), which the prosecution allege was discovered pursuant to Sushila's statement, was in his (Appellant's) possession at any time. Similarly, the Appellant denied that he had telephoned to Kantilal Solanki on the night of 12th November. It was alleged by the Appellant that Suryakant Parab was deposing against him as a result of animus. According to the Appellant. Ramchandra Nakte was afraid of the police and therefore giving evidence against him. According to him again, he had Sudhakar Dixit had an exchange of hot words over an amount of Rs. 50/- which had been borrowed by Sudhakar from the Appellant and which amount was not returned by Sudhakar Dixit to the Appellant. According to the Appellant, Arthur Pareira was giving evidence against him at the instance of Ram Nakte. According to him Manohar Borse and Kantilal Solanki were giving evidence as they were afraid of the Police. 50/- which had been borrowed by Sudhakar from the Appellant and which amount was not returned by Sudhakar Dixit to the Appellant. According to the Appellant, Arthur Pareira was giving evidence against him at the instance of Ram Nakte. According to him Manohar Borse and Kantilal Solanki were giving evidence as they were afraid of the Police. It may be mentioned that one Ravindranath Belekar (P.W. 19) has given evidence that he had seen the three viz., the Appellant. Sushila and the Bhayya together on the Juhu Beach on the evening of 12th November. This was denied by the appellant and it was alleged that Ravindranath Belekar was a Police informant who was giving evidence at the instance of P.S.I. Sawant who has carried out the investigation after the initial statements were recorded by Inspector Barse. 14. In her statement Sushila admitted that she became acquainted with the Appellant when she had been going to the Worli Health Scheme for taking medicine. According to her, she did not meet him after he was transferred to Vile Parle but she had talked to him on the telephone. She stated that the Appellant gave her his address at Mahim. According to Sushila, her relations with her husband were not cordial and Suryakant used to beat her and abuse her. On 3rd October, 1968 there was a quarrel between them and at that time Suryakant, assaulted her. She therefore, left the matrimonial home on 4th October 1968. At that time she wrote a letter to her husband informing him that she was leaving his house and he should not search for her. Sushila stated that thereafter she first went to a woman-friend but the woman-friend advised her to go back to her own house; she then went to the Appellant at Borse's house. According to Sushila, the Appellant first advised her to go back to her husband, but she refused and requested him to arrange for her stay. According to her, she stayed for one day at Borse's place and on the 6th October 1968 the Appellant took her to Khalapur, where she stayed for one month at the Appellant's brother's house. The Appellant thereafter brought her back to Bombay. According to her, she stayed for one day at Borse's place and on the 6th October 1968 the Appellant took her to Khalapur, where she stayed for one month at the Appellant's brother's house. The Appellant thereafter brought her back to Bombay. Sushila further stated that since the beginning of November 1968, she and the Appellant were staying in one room in the Dattatraya Lodging and Boarding House at Goregaon, but maintained that they were not living there as husband and wife. According to Sushila, on the 16th November 1968 the Appellant received a telegram that his brother was ill at Panvel and thereafter both of them went to Panvel on the 17th. According to Sushila, they first stayed in the house of the Appellant's brother and then went to live with Shakuntala Patankar as her guests. Sushila admitted in her statement under Section 342 Cri.P.C. that occasionally she had gone to meet her brother Shankar Salunke when he was living in the room of Shantaram Raut on the ground floor of Gopal Bhuwan, but she denied that she had come to know Ram Bali. According to Sushila, she did not know who Ram Bali was, Sushila alleged that on one occasion when she had gone to her brother Shankar. Shankar was not found at his room. Shantaram Raut was alone in the room and Shantaram tried to misbehave with her. At that time, Sushila alleged that she had slapped him and a quarrel had taken place. Sushila denied that she had ever entered the room of Ram Bali, or that she knew that he was keeping large amounts of money in his room. She further denied that she telephoned to Ram Bali and called him to Nanavati Hospital on the 12th November 1968, or that she was in the company of the Appellant and Ram Bali in the evening. She denied that she was in the company of these two persons on the Juhu Beach on the evening of the 12th. She further denied that she had made any telephone call to Princess Street on the morning of the 13th. She denied that she had gone to Karjat earlier with the Appellant, or on the 17th to Jhansi, again with the Appellant. She also denied that she had made a statement to the Police, pursuant to which the knife (Article O) was recovered. She denied that she had gone to Karjat earlier with the Appellant, or on the 17th to Jhansi, again with the Appellant. She also denied that she had made a statement to the Police, pursuant to which the knife (Article O) was recovered. She also denied that she had gone to the room of the deceased Ram Bali on the 27th November or that on this occasion cash of Rs. 3400/- was recovered from that room, which amount was contained in two boxes in the said room. According to her, her husband Suryakant Parab was giving evidence against her because she had left him. Shantaram had also deposed falsely because of the previous incident which she referred to in her statement. According to her, the other witnesses were involving her at the instance of the police. 15. Before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, it had been urged by the learned Advocate, who appeared for the two accused, that the identity of the dead body had not been satisfactorily established Jamnaprasad (P.W. 4), the nephew of the deceased, has been examined; the learned Additional Sessions Judge accepted the identification made by Jamnaprasad, and considering his deposition and the other evidence it is clear that the dead body found on the Juhu Beach on the morning of 13th November 1968 was that of the deceased Ram Bali Ramkuber Mishra who was the rent collector of Gopal Bhuwan at Princess Street, Kalbadevi, and who used to reside in a room on the ground floor of Gopal Bhuwan. It may be mentioned that in the appeal before us the learned Advocate for the Appellant did not advance any argument on the question of the identity of the dead body. In these circumstances we have not referred to the other pieces of evidence which were considered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and mentioned in his judgment. In our opinion, the identity has been sufficiently and clearly established. (His Lordship here discussed (in paras 16 to 42) the extra judicial confessions made to Ramchandra Nakte (P.W. 12). Sudhakar Dixit (P.W. 13) and Arthur Pareira (P.W. 14), the judgment then proceeded :) 43. In our opinion the evidence given by all these three witnesses is acceptable evidence and they appear to be reliable witnesses. (His Lordship here discussed (in paras 16 to 42) the extra judicial confessions made to Ramchandra Nakte (P.W. 12). Sudhakar Dixit (P.W. 13) and Arthur Pareira (P.W. 14), the judgment then proceeded :) 43. In our opinion the evidence given by all these three witnesses is acceptable evidence and they appear to be reliable witnesses. On certain events they have corroborated one another, and we have not been impressed with the suggestion that it was RamChandra Nakte who had got up this case and these witnesses against the Appellant. There is no reason for Ramchandra Nakate to get up any case or any witnesses for the matter against the Appellant. He has been and has remained a friend of the Appellant and that, in our opinion, is the guarantee for the genuineness of the confession made by the Appellant to him. 44. It must be remembered that all these three witness, if they are to be accepted and we believe them, had come to know from the Appellant that he had committed the murder of one Bhayya at Juhu. They did not report his to the police, on the other hand, they had tried to help the Appellant go away out of Bombay and as Ramchandra Nakate had mentioned, had attempted to shield him from the clutches of law. They are all, as the English law describes, accessories after the fact. In particular, Ramchandra Nakate with his close relationship with the Appellant had tried to assist and help the Appellant, although he was award from the 13th November of what the Appellant had done. In these circumstances, it would be necessary to scrutinise their depositions properly and adequately and to consider their testimony with care and caution. We have done so. We have also considered the various so-called 'improvements' and contradictions to which our attention had been drawn meticulously by the learned Advocate for the Appellant. After this scrutiny we are of the opinion that these three persons are reliable witnesses and their evidence deserves to be accepted. There is nothing also on the record to show or indicate that Ramchandra Nakate or Sudhakar Dixit or Arthur Pareira had any reason to involve the Appellant to save themselves or himself. There is nothing brought out in the cross-examination of the Investigating Officer, P.S.I. Sawant, which would show that any of these three witnesses was suspected at any time. There is nothing also on the record to show or indicate that Ramchandra Nakate or Sudhakar Dixit or Arthur Pareira had any reason to involve the Appellant to save themselves or himself. There is nothing brought out in the cross-examination of the Investigating Officer, P.S.I. Sawant, which would show that any of these three witnesses was suspected at any time. Thus it is clear that neither of the three had any reason to implicate the Appellant falsely. 45. However, no conviction can be based solely on an extra-judicial confession, not even on three extra-judicial confessions. It is a rule of prudence, particularly in cases of homicide and other grave offences, that it would not be safe to convict an accused person only on the evidence of an extra-judicial confession. It is true that in this case the witnesses who have deposed to the extra-judicial confessions have impressed us as reliable, acceptable and trustworthy persons. All the three of them had acted to help and assist the Appellant and it appears to us that the confessions made to them were natural in the circumstances of the case. We have already stated that the course of investigation to a large extent would indicate that what is stated in the extra-judicial confession made to Ramchandra Nakate is true. There are, however, other circumstances of a corroborative character which may now be mentioned. (After discussing the corroborative evidence in Paras 46 to 61, the Judgment proceeded) : 62. These then are the various circumstances that lend support to and corroborate the three extra-judicial confessions which, it must be conceded, constitute the main evidence led by the prosecution against the Appellant. A number of submissions were made by the learned Advocate Mr. Abhale appearing for the Appellant during the course of the arguments and he submitted that the evidence on record was insufficient for the conviction of the Appellant. A number of submissions were made by the learned Advocate Mr. Abhale appearing for the Appellant during the course of the arguments and he submitted that the evidence on record was insufficient for the conviction of the Appellant. He submitted : (i) that the evidence furnished by the extra-judicial confessions has always been regarded to be week evidence, (ii) that the evidence furnished by an extra-judicial confession may be used only as corroborative evidence and not as the main evidence on which the conviction of an accused person can be based, and (iii) that even if the conviction may be based on the extra-judicial confessions, the extra-judicial confessions were required to be substantially corroborated and that the corroboration available in this case was not sufficient to warrant the conviction of the Appellant Mr. Abhale cited a number of authorities in this connection. 63. Principal reliance was placed by the learned Advocate for the Appellant on the observations of Subbarao, J. (as he then was) in Sahoo v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1966 (2) SCJ 172 = ( AIR 1966 SC 40 ). The appellant Sahoo was charged under Section 302, I.P.C. and it was alleged that he had killed Sunderpatti, the wife of his eldest son. Except for the extra-judicial confession the entire evidence in the case was circumstantial. The observations relied upon by Mr. Abhale read as follows :- ".... But, there is a clear distinction between the admissibility of an evidence and the weight to be attached to it. A confessional soliloquy is a direct piece of evidence. It may be an expression of conflict of emotion; a conscious effort to stifle the pricked conscience; an argument to find excuses or justification for his act; or a penitent or remorseful act of exaggeration on his part in the crime. The tone may be soft and low; the words may be confused; they may be capable of conflicting interpretations depending on witnesses, whether they are biased or honest, intelligent or ignorant, imaginative or prosaic as the case may be Generally they are mutterings of a confused mind. Before such evidence can be accepted it must be established by cogent evidence what were the exact words used by the accused. Even if so much was established, prudence and justice demand that such evidence cannot be made the sole ground of conviction. Before such evidence can be accepted it must be established by cogent evidence what were the exact words used by the accused. Even if so much was established, prudence and justice demand that such evidence cannot be made the sole ground of conviction. It may be used only as a corroborative piece of evidence." 64. Mr. Abhale also referred us to a Full Bench Decision of the Madhya Bharat High Court in Fakirchand v. State, AIR 1955 Madhya Bharat 119 (FB). In that case it has been held by the Full Bench as follows :- "Generally speaking evidence of extra-judicial confession is a very weak kind of evidence. I has to be scrutinized minutely and received with great caution. In dealing with extra-judicial confession it should be borne in mind that a witness may easily fabricate wholly or in part a confessional statement and it is very difficult to expose the falsity." 65. The third case very strongly relied upon by Mr. Abhale was Mst. Bhagan v. State of PEPSU, AIR 1955 Pepsu 33. In para 12 of that judgment it has been observed that ordinarily it is unsafe to base conviction on an extra-judicial confession. The High Court observes : "It is not possible to ascertain the exact words and the language used by the confessing accused. Therefore, it is not of such a nature as to entitle it to any weight." It may be mentioned that in the PEPSU case the Court held that the extra-judicial confession had been extorted from the accused and therefore, refused to rely on the same. It is undoubtedly true that a confession must be a voluntary one and Court, before it can base a conviction on a confession, must satisfy itself that it was voluntary and true. 66. It is not possible to agree with the observations in the Full Bench decision of the Madhya Bharat High Court (AIR 1955 Madh B 119) that the evidence of extra-judicial confession is a weak kind of evidence. It is true that the evidence of extra-judicial confession has to be scrutinized carefully and received with great caution. In this connection, the Court would have to consider whether it was natural for the accused person to have confided in and confessed to the person who is deposing to the confession. The relationship of that person with the accused before the Court is most material and vital. In this connection, the Court would have to consider whether it was natural for the accused person to have confided in and confessed to the person who is deposing to the confession. The relationship of that person with the accused before the Court is most material and vital. Then again, the Court would have to consider what has been confessed to and whether the same is consistent with the facts about the incident as deposed to by the other witnesses and discovered during the course of the police investigation. The scrutiny has to be minute and great caution has to be exercised. It is also to be considered whether the person deposing to the extra-judicial confession had any motive or other reason for falsely involving the accused person. It is also to be considered whether such person is otherwise a satisfactory witness. It must also be borne in mind by the Court considering the evidence of such person whether there is any likelihood of such person being himself concerned with the crime in question and, therefore, falsely implicating the accused. If after such careful scrutiny, the evidence of extra-judicial confession is regarded as acceptable and trustworthy, such evidence cannot be characterised as 'weak' evidence. Strict proof undoubtedly has to be insisted upon; but once such proof is forthcoming, the evidence of extra-judicial confession cannot undoubtedly be characterised as a 'weak type of evidence.' 67. As far as Sahoo's case, ( AIR 1966 SC 40 ) to concerned, it does not appear that the use to be made of the evidence of extra-judicial confession was a point which arose for determination in that case. There were a number of circumstances found against the appellant Sahoo which were reinforced by the evidence as to extra-judicial confession. In our opinion, although there is a clear observation favouring Mr. Abhale's submission and that observation is certainly entitled to due weight, we must observe that no principle of law has been laid down and our conclusion in this behalf is strengthened by the observations in other decisions of the Supreme Court to which reference will be made presently. 68. It may be mentioned that Mr. Abhale has also referred us to Ram Chandra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1957 SC 381 . 68. It may be mentioned that Mr. Abhale has also referred us to Ram Chandra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1957 SC 381 . In para 6 of that decision the Supreme Court has laid down the rule of prudence to be applied by the Courts in dealing with extra-judicial confessions. It has been observed. "Normally speaking. It would not be quite safe, as a matter of prudence if not of law, to base a conviction for murder on the confession of the alleged murder." In that case the Supreme Court went on to hold that the story of the murder as given in the extra-judicial confession of the appellant before it was hard to belive. In particular, the description of the manner in which the murder was committed was not consistent with the facts found in the investigation Jagannadhadas, J., went on to observe : "But where the proof of the factum of the murder is itself solely dependent upon the confession, the apparent improbability of the manner in which the murder is said to have been brought about in the confession would be a cogent circumstance against the confession being relied upon." The observations in this case suggest, in our opinion, that in a criminal case conviction can be based upon an extra-judicial confession, provided it is duly proved and that it does not contain anything which is inconsistent with the facts as subsequently found. In Ram Chandra's case, AIR 1957 SC 381 the part of the confession dealing with the actual commission of the murder viz. the manner in which it was committed was not accepted by the Court and, therefore, the evidence of extra-judicial confession was regarded as unreliable. This case, in our opinion, lays down that the evidence as to extra-judicial confession must be reliable, and if it is reliable it can certainly be the basis of a conviction though, as a rule of prudence perhaps not the only basis of a criminal conviction. 69. The rule of caution was reiterated in Ratan Gond v. State of Bihar, AIR 1959 SC 18 , when it was observed that usually and as a matter of caution Courts require some material corroboration to an extra-judicial confessional statement, corroboration which connects the accused person with the crime in question. 69. The rule of caution was reiterated in Ratan Gond v. State of Bihar, AIR 1959 SC 18 , when it was observed that usually and as a matter of caution Courts require some material corroboration to an extra-judicial confessional statement, corroboration which connects the accused person with the crime in question. Similarly, in Mulk Rai v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1959 SC 902 , the weight to be attached to the evidence of extra-judicial confession came up for consideration. It was observed that an extra-judicial confession, if voluntary, can be relied upon by the Court along with other evidence in convicting the accused. The confession will have to be proved just like any other fact. The value of the evidence as to the confession just like any other evidence, depends upon the veracity of the witness to whom it is made. It was further observed that the Court would normally require the witness to give the actual words used by the accused as nearly as possible, but that it was not an invariable rule that the Court should not accept the evidence if the actual words were not given by the witness but only the substance was given. These decisions also suggest that a conviction can be based on the evidence of an extra-judicial confession and that it is not merely to be used as a piece of corroborative evidence. 70. The point was again before the Supreme Court in Ram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1967 SC 152 . It was observed by Raghubar Dayal, J., who gave the judgment of the Court : "Extra-judicial confessions are not usually considered with favour, but that does not mean that such a confession coming from a person who has no reason to state falsely and to whom it is made in circumstances which tend to support his statement, should not be believed." In that case, apart from the extra-judicial confession, the supporting pieces of evidence pertained to Ram Singh having enmity with the deceased and his conduct in purchasing a sword and delivering it stained with human blood. According to the Supreme Court, this circumstances, added to the extra-judicial confession, fully established that the appellant had committed the murder, and it was held that he was rightly convicted and sentenced to death under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the Supreme Court, this circumstances, added to the extra-judicial confession, fully established that the appellant had committed the murder, and it was held that he was rightly convicted and sentenced to death under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. It may be noted that Subbarao, J. (as he then was), was a party to this judgment and the conviction was substantially based upon the extra-judicial confession and it was not regarded merely as corroborative evidence. 71. Our attention was drawn by Mr. Barday appearing for the State to a very recent decision of the Supreme Court in Thimma v. State of Mysore, AIR 1971 SC 1871 = (1971 Cri.L.J. 1314). In that case the person deposing to the extra-judicial confession was himself suspected of the crime during the course of the investigation. On that ground the High Court rejected the evidence of extra-judicial confession. The Supreme Court, however, reversed the finding of the High Court and held that this was not a cogent ground for holding that he had concocted the confession or for coming to the conclusion that the confession was not voluntary or true. It was further held that an unambiguous confession, if admissible in evidence and free from suspicion of falsity is a valuable piece of evidence prossessing a high probative force. But in the process of proof of a confession the Court must be satisfied that it is voluntary, that it does not appear to be the result of inducement, threat or promise, and that the surrounding circumstances must not indicate that it is inspired by some improper or collateral consideration, suggesting that it may not be true. All the relevant factors, it was observed, have to be considered, such as the person to whom the confession was made, the time and the place of making it, the circumstances in which it was made and finally the actual words. In Thimma's case AIR 1971 SC 1871 = (1971 Cri.L.J. 1314) the Supreme court considered whether Prosecution witness No. 4 in that case, who had given evidence of the extra-judicial confession was to be believed. It was held by the Supreme Court that he had no motive or reason to concoct the story of confession. Dua, J., thereafter went on to observe : "The words used are quite clear and admit of no doubt of the appellant's guilt. It was held by the Supreme Court that he had no motive or reason to concoct the story of confession. Dua, J., thereafter went on to observe : "The words used are quite clear and admit of no doubt of the appellant's guilt. And then though the evidence of prosecution witness No. 4 does not need any corroboration. We find that corroboration in material particulars is forthcoming on the record". These observations seem to indicate that if after a careful and cautions scrutiny the evidence as to extra-judicial confession was held truthful and acceptable and the words were quite clear and unequivocal, then conviction, in the opinion of Dua, J., can be based on such confession without any corroboration. It is also important to note that in para 9 of the judgment Dua, J. has considered what facts would amount to corroboration in material particulars of the extra-judicial confession. In Thimma's case AIR 1971 SC 1871 = (1971 Cri.L.J. 1314) corroboration was furnished by the existence of the dead body and of other articles at the place where they were later found and the subsequent visit of the accused person and prosecution witness No. 4 to that spot. 72. As already stated we have carefully scrutinized the evidence given by all the three witnesses to whom the extra-judicial confessions were separately made by the Appellant viz. Ramchandra Nakate (P.W. 12). Sudhakar Dixit (P.W. 13) and Arthur Pareira (P.W. 14). We have considered their relationship with the Appellant, the circumstances in which the confessions came to be made as also the contents of the alleged confessions made to these three persons. Bearing in mind all the factors indicated above we have formed the opinion that these three persons are reliable witnesses, that they had no reason or motive to falsely implicate the Appellant and that the Appellant did not make these confessions to them by reason of any inducement, threat or promise. It is impossible to accept the Appellant's contention that Ramchandra Nakate is giving evidence against him by reason of police pressure or that by reason of such police pressure he has even induced his friend Arthur Pareira to falsely implicate the Appellant. It is similarly impossible to accept the appellant's contention that Sudhakar Dixit is falsely involving the Appellant because previously there was an exchange of words between the Appellant and Sudhakar Dixit over a loan of Rs. 50/-. It is similarly impossible to accept the appellant's contention that Sudhakar Dixit is falsely involving the Appellant because previously there was an exchange of words between the Appellant and Sudhakar Dixit over a loan of Rs. 50/-. 73. In our opinion further the extra-judicial confessions particularly the one made to Ramchandra Nakate, are borne out and corroborated substantially by the several facts which have been brought out in evidence and to which reference has already been made in the earlier part of this judgment. The subsequent conduct of the Appellant and the course of investigation lend support to our view that the extra-judicial confessions were made by the Appellant to these three persons. In these circumstances we are compelled to conclude that the extra-judicial confessions, particularly the one made to Ranchandra Nakate, are true and that it would be proper and safe in this case to act on these extra-judicial confessions. 74. In the result, we see no reason to differ from the learned Additional Sessions Judge both as regards the conviction of the Appellant and the sentence. The appeal accordingly fails and will stand dismissed. 75. Criminal Application No. 173 of 1971 has been preferred by one Dayashankar Basdev Mishra who claims to be a nephew of the deceased Rambali Mishra. The learned Additional Sessions Judge at the conclusion of the trial before him passed certain orders regarding the disposal of the Articles marked I, J, P and Q in the proceedings. Article I and J, sun-glasses with plastic cover and a sum of Rs. 36-97 respectively, were found on the dead body of Rambali Mishra, and Articles P and Q (the small tin box, brown paper bag, a cheque, a letter and Rs. 958-89 in currency notes and loose coins; and one cash box, a brown paper bag and the amount of Rs. 2500/- in currency notes respectively) were discovered in Rambali's room when a second search thereof was taken on the 27th November 1968. The learned Additional Sessions Judge directed these four articles to be returned to the legal heirs of the deceased. As far as Articles I and J concerned, the direction of the trial Court appears to be proper. 2500/- in currency notes respectively) were discovered in Rambali's room when a second search thereof was taken on the 27th November 1968. The learned Additional Sessions Judge directed these four articles to be returned to the legal heirs of the deceased. As far as Articles I and J concerned, the direction of the trial Court appears to be proper. As far as the currency notes found in the room (part of Articles P & Q) are concerned, the order does not appear to be quite correct inasmuch as it is not quite clear whether the entire amount belonged to the deceased Rambali Mishra. It will be for the heirs of Rambali to obtain necessary orders from the proper Court pertaining to this property. As far as Articles I and J are concerned. We do not wish to interfere with the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. But as far as the amounts are concerned, viz. Rs. 958-89 (Part of Article P) and Rs. 2500/- (Part of Article Q), these amounts are directed to be retained by the Sessions Court for a period of one year from today, during which time the heirs of the deceased may obtain necessary orders from the proper Court. If no steps are taken during this period by the heirs of the deceased, the said amounts be credited to the Government after giving due notice to the owners of Gopal Bhuwan, Princess Street, Kalbadevi, Bombay 2. Subject to the above variation, the rest of the order regarding the disposal of the property produced in the case passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is confirmed. Appeal dismissed.