JUDGMENT : B.K. Patra, J. - This is an appeal by the State against an order of the Sessions Judge, Koraput, acquitting the Respondent who was tried on a charge u/s 302, Indian Penal Code on the allegation that at about 4.00 P.M. of 29-4-1969, he committed the murder of Mahanandia Khochar alias Balada Domb. 2. The prosecution case in short is this : p.w. 8 Kutruka Melbega had given possessory mortgage of his lands to the deceased, the stipulation being that the latter would enjoy the lands for three years at the end of which the mortgage would stand discharged. On the date of occurrence, the deceased had come to Kutruka Melbega's house and on the latter's verandah they were talking to each other when suddenly the Respondent came to the spot and assaulted the deceased with a Kati. He dealt several blows on the head face and hand of the deceased as a result of which the latter fell down sustaining bleeding injuries. P.w. 8 raised an alarm hearing which several persons including Kutruka Situnna (p.w. 6) the father and Kutruka Bodru (p.w. 7) the brother of the Respondent came to the spot. They found the deceased lying injured and the Respondent standing there with a blood-stained Kati. They snatched the Kati from the Respondent and tied him to a post and on being questioned the Respondent admitted having inflicted the injuries on the deceased. P.w. 13 Ratnala Dandasi accompanied by some other persons went to the police station and reported about the occurrence to the officer-in-charge who drew up the F.I.R. (Ext. 8) and reached the spot and found Balda Domb dead. That very day he held the necessary inquest over the dead body and sent it for post-mortem examination and arrested the Respondent. He seized inter alia the Kati (M.O. I.) and the cloth worn by the Respondent (M.O. II.) and sent them to the Chemical Examiner for necessary examination and report. After completing investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the Respondent. After preliminary inquiry by a Magistrate, the Respondent was sent up for trial before the Court of Session. 3. The Respondent pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him. He denied all knowledge about the occurrence and stated that he was mad. 4. After completing investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the Respondent. After preliminary inquiry by a Magistrate, the Respondent was sent up for trial before the Court of Session. 3. The Respondent pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him. He denied all knowledge about the occurrence and stated that he was mad. 4. P.w. 1 is the doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination over the dead body of Balada Domb; He found as many as ten external injuries on the person of the deceased. The first one was a lacerated injury on the forehead 8" ? ?"? 3". The second and the third were incised injuries over the vertex and on the forehead respectively. Nos. 4, 5 and 6 were incised injuries on the left ear. No. 7 was an incised injury over the nasal bridge. No. 8 was an incised injury extending from ?"below the left zygomatic membrane upto ?" above the left angle of the mouth No. 9 was an incised injury on the lateral side of the neck and No. 10 was an incised injury oyer the dorsal surface of the left wrist. On dissection he found incised injury of the membranes of the skull and prolapse of the brain matter through injury No. 1 over the forehead. In the opinion of the doctor, the two internal injuries which correspond to external injuries 1, 2 and 3 were fatal and that death was due to those injuries. He further opined that all the injuries were antemortem in nature and could be caused by a sharp cutting weapon like M.O. I. There cannot, therefore, be any doubt that the death of the deceased was homicidal. The finding to that effect recorded by the learned Sessions Judge is not assailed before us. 5. The learned Sessions Judge after discussing the evidence of the witnesses disbelieved their testimony and acquitted the accused. Hence this appeal by the State. 6. The first question for consideration is whether the Respondent had caused those injuries. P.w. 8 on whose verandah the occurrence took place is the uncle of the Respondent and he deposed that while he was talking to the deceased, the Respondent suddenly came there armed with the Kati (M. O. I) and dealt several blows on the head, face and hand of the deceased. P.w. 8 on whose verandah the occurrence took place is the uncle of the Respondent and he deposed that while he was talking to the deceased, the Respondent suddenly came there armed with the Kati (M. O. I) and dealt several blows on the head, face and hand of the deceased. P.w. 11 Minayaka Sarabu and his mother p.w. 12 Minayaka Neela, reside in a house adjacent to that of p.w. 8. P.w. 12 stated that on the rdate of occurrence while she was in her house she heard the alarm raised by P.w. 8 that the accused was killing the deceased and came out of her house and saw the accused dealing a blow with his Kati on the head of the deceased. She then went inside and woke up her son p.w. 11. She is aged 70 years and it was suggested to her in cross-examination that due to old age her vision was defective. She denied the suggestion and stated that she saw this incident from a distance of a bout 20 cubits. Her evidence is sought to be discredited on the ground that she stated in cross-examination that she saw the Kati blow falling on the right side of the head of the deceased. It is pointed out that none of the injuries is on the right side of the head of the deceased and that therefore the evidence of p.w. 12 cannot be believed. We are not prepared to reject her testimony on this ground. The deceased had three injuries in the region of his lead, two are over the forehead and one on the vertex. Anyone of these injuries can be mistaken to be on the right side of the head and consequently merely on the ground that p.w. 12 stated that the blow which she noticed was inflicted on the right side of the deceased, we are not prepared to reject her testimony. Although her son p.w. 11 claims to have seen the accused actually dealing blows with the Kati on the person of the deceased it was elicited from him in cross-examination that by the time he went to the spot after being woken up by her mother, p.ws. 6, 7 and others had already reached the spot, and we get it from p.ws. 6, 7 and others had already reached the spot, and we get it from p.ws. 6 and 7 that before they reached the spot, the deceased had received all the injuries and was lying down on the ground. We thus have the evidence of the two eye-witnesses, namely, p.ws. 8 and 12 of whom p.w. 8 is closely related to the Respondent being his paternal uncle. Nothing has been elicited from either of the two witnesses to show that they had any motive to falsely depose against the Respondent. 7. P.w. 6 the father and p.w. 7 the brother of the Respondent and p.ws. 9 and 10 who are two other villagers have deposed that on hearing the shouts of p.w. 8 that the deceased was being killed by the accused they hurried to the place of occurrence. P.ws. 6, 7 and 9 say that when they reached the spot, they found the deceased lying down on the ground with bleeding injuries and the accused standing there with the bloodstained Kati (M.O. I.) They snatched the Kati from him and kept it near the dead body and tied him to a post. This is also spoken to by p.w. 8. All these four witnesses and also p.w. 10 stated that on being questioned by p.w. 6, the Respondent admitted that he had killed the deceased. It was, however, elicited from p.ws. 6 and 7 in cross-examination that neither p.w. 6 had questioned anything to the Respondent nor did the latter tell them anything. Having regard to the close relationship between p.ws. 6 and 7 and the accused there is nothing surprising about p.ws. 6 and 7 resiling from the earlier statements made by them in examination-in-chief that the accused had confessed his guilt before them. Even if we ignore the statements made by p.ws. 6 and 7 regarding the extra-judicial confession, we still have the evidence of p.ws, 8, 9 and 10 on this point. We, therefore, believe their evidence that the Respondent confessed his guilt before p.ws. 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10. Doubtless any extra-judicial confession is generally considered as a very weak piece of evidence but where an accused adheres at the trial to a previous extrajudicial confession, it may if the Court so chooses be acted upon without corroboration. A retracted confession, as is the case here, however, stands on a different footing. 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10. Doubtless any extra-judicial confession is generally considered as a very weak piece of evidence but where an accused adheres at the trial to a previous extrajudicial confession, it may if the Court so chooses be acted upon without corroboration. A retracted confession, as is the case here, however, stands on a different footing. When a retracted confession is given in evidence, the Court has first to see if it is admissible. From the point of view of admissibility alone the mere fact that the confession is retracted is immaterial, unless it is shown that it is improperly induced. When a confession is held to be admissible, then only comes the question what weight should be given to it. As a matter of prudence and caution which has sanctified itself into a rule of law a retracted confession cannot be made the sole basis of conviction. If, however, the making of the confession is proved beyond question, it should be a strong piece of evidence because no man would make a confession against himself if in fact the confession was not true. When a confession, therefore, is found to be voluntary and true, there is no reason why it cannot even afford the sole basis of conviction. It is argued on behalf of the Respondent that the confession said to have been made by the Respondent in this case should not be deemed to be voluntary because the witnesses who have deposed on this point had stated that the confession was made after the Respondent was tied to a post. But it is clear from the evidence on record that tying of the Respondent to the post was not to extort any confession from him but it was done with a view to prevent his escape. In this connection it has to be remembered that the persons in whose presence the confession was made included the Respondent's father, brother and uncle. Far from alleging that these persons had any motive to implicate him fasely in the murder, there is evidence that the Respondent was living jointly with his father and brother. There is no evidence that the making of the concession was caused by any inducement, threat or promise. In this case, besides this confession, there is the testimony of p.ws. 8 and 12 who are eye witnesses to the occurrence. There is no evidence that the making of the concession was caused by any inducement, threat or promise. In this case, besides this confession, there is the testimony of p.ws. 8 and 12 who are eye witnesses to the occurrence. We, therefore, believe that the Respondent did confess his guilt before p.ws. 6, 8, 9 and 10 and that it was voluntary in the sense that it was not induced by any threat or promise. 8. There is yet another circumstance against the Respondent. P.w. 8 had deposed that the Respondent inflicted injuries on the deceased with the Kati M.O. I. P.ws. 6, 7 and 9 stated that by the time they went to the place of occurrence, they found the accused standing there holding the Kati M.O.I which was blood-stained. ...This M.O.I is our Kati which I identify from the broken portion on the middle of its sharp edge.... As already stated, the Respondent was living with his father and brother and so he must have brought the Kati (M.O.I) from his house. The wearing cloth of the Respondent (M.O. II) which was seized from him by the police and also the Kati (M.O. I.) had been sent to the Chemical Examiner and his report Ext. 14 shows that they were blood-stained. Form the report of the Serologist. (Ext. 15) it is found that both M.Os. I and II were stained with human blood. During the examination of the accused u/s 342, Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned Sessions Judge only brought to the notice of the accused the fact that M.Os. I and II were blood-stained which, however, the accused denied. He was not specifically questioned about the Serologist's report, that M.Os. I and II were stained with human blood. In these circumstances, therefore, the Serologist's report (Ext. 15) cannot be utilised as evidence against the accused. But the fact remains that the cloth which the accused was wearing was found to be blood-stained and the Kati which the accused was found holding when p.ws. 6, 7 and 9 arrived at the place of occurrence was also stained with blood. These circumstances support the testimony given by p.w. 8 that it was with the Kati (M.O. I) that the accused inflicted the injuries on the deceased. 6, 7 and 9 arrived at the place of occurrence was also stained with blood. These circumstances support the testimony given by p.w. 8 that it was with the Kati (M.O. I) that the accused inflicted the injuries on the deceased. This circumstance also supports the medical evidence that the injuries found on the deceased could be caused by a sharp edged instrument like the Kati M.O. I. 9. On a careful consideration of the evidence on record, we find that it has been established beyond all reasonable doubt that the Respondent had inflicted the injuries on the deceased which resulted in the latter's death. 10. The only other point that remains to be considered is the plea of the accused that he was mad by the time he committed the offence. Every person is presumed to be sane until the contrary is established and the burden is on the accused to prove that at the time of committing the offence he was, by reason of unsoundness of mind incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he was doing what was either wrong or contrary to law. The legal position regarding the burden of proof in the context of the plea of insanity is stated by the Supreme Court in Madan Lal Arora Vs. Excise and Taxation Officer, Amritsar. The propositions stated are (1) The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused bad committed the offence with the requisite mens rea; and the burden of proving that always rests on the prosecution from the beginning to the end of the trial. Excise and Taxation Officer, Amritsar. The propositions stated are (1) The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused bad committed the offence with the requisite mens rea; and the burden of proving that always rests on the prosecution from the beginning to the end of the trial. (2) There is a rebuttable presumption that the accused was not insane, when he committed the crime in the sense laid down by Section 84 of the Penal Code; the accused may rebut it by placing before the Court all the relevant evidence - oral, documentary or circumstantial, but the burden of proof upon him is no higher than that rests upon a party to civil proceedings; (3) Even if the accused was not able to establish conclusively that he was insane at the time he committed the offence, the evidence placed before the Court by the accused or by the prosecution may raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the Court as regards one or more of the ingredients of the offence, including mens rea of the accused and in that case the Court would be entitled to acquit the accused on the ground that the general burden of proof resting on the prosecution was not discharged. It is not necessary for the prosecution to expressly prove sanity of the accused at the time of committing the offence. No evidence has been adduced by the accused to show that he was insane at the time he committed the offence. On the contrary there is evidence to show that he was not insane at any time. His father p.w. 6 stated that the accused married and had three issues and he never suffered from mental disease for the last ten years. All that he stated was that he was having epileptic fits for about three years before the occurrence. Obviously because a plea of insanity was raised by the accused during the stage of investigation the Investigating Officer requested the Assistant Surgeon of the Gunupur hospital (p.w. 2) to examine the accused and the latter on examining him found no mental defect. It was elicited from him in cross-examination that the accused was having epileptic fits. But there is no evidence to show that at the time of the occurrence took place the accused had an attack of epileptic fits. It was elicited from him in cross-examination that the accused was having epileptic fits. But there is no evidence to show that at the time of the occurrence took place the accused had an attack of epileptic fits. The statement of p.w. 8 that to the query made by p.w. 6 the accused confessed to have killed the deceased and that he was indifferent to the consequences thereof, shows beyond doubt that the accused knew at the time he committed the offence the nature of the act done by him. Having regard, therefore, to the evidence and circumstances of the case the plea of insanity cannot be sustained. 11. In the result, we would allow this appeal, set aside the order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge and convict the Respondent u/s 302, Indian Penal Code and sentence him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. 12. We cannot part with this case without commenting on the unsatisfactory manner in which the prosecution has been conducted in the Court below. Some articles seized from the accused which were found to be blood-stained and the bloodstained earth collected from the place of occurrence were sent to the Chemical Examiner. Although the report of the Chemical Examiner and the Serologist have been exhibited in this case we could not find on record the forwarding letter of the Officer who sent these articles to the Chemical Examiner. Unless the forwarding letter is on record, it is not possible to connect the accused with the articles which were examined by the Chemical Examiner and the Serologist. It was not even elicited from the Investigating Officer in this case that M. Os I and II which had been seized in this case had been sent to the Chemical Examiner through the Magistrate. It is only from the letter of the Chemical Examiner addressed to the Magistrate, First Class,. Bissumcuttack (Ext. 14) that we could find that the materials examined by the Chemical Examiner were those seized in Bissumcuttack P.S. Case No. 20 of 1969 dated 29-4-1969 u/s 302, Indian Penal Code and we could thus connect the material objects with the present case. Such careless handling of an important case like this should be avoided in future. Bissumcuttack (Ext. 14) that we could find that the materials examined by the Chemical Examiner were those seized in Bissumcuttack P.S. Case No. 20 of 1969 dated 29-4-1969 u/s 302, Indian Penal Code and we could thus connect the material objects with the present case. Such careless handling of an important case like this should be avoided in future. We have also noticed with some amount of concern that a Senior Sessions Judge should have at the time of examining the accused u/s 342, Code of Criminal Procedure failed to draw his attention to an important piece of evidence, namely, that his wearing apparel and the Kati seized from him were stained with human blood. This omission on the part of the Sessions Judge did not seriously affect the decision in this case, because of the overwhelming evidence on record which establishes the guilt of the accused. But there may be cases where such omission would be fatal to the prosecution case. It is of paramount importance that during examination of the accused u/s 342, Code of Criminal Procedure every circumstance appearing in evidence against him should be brought to his notice so that he will get adequate opportunity to explain the same. S. Acharya, J. 13. I agree.