Short Note : There is no direct evidence in the sense that no body saw the appellant actually injuring his wife. The circumstances appearing against him are: (i) his having slept for the night near his wife while his mother-in-law Brijbai (PW 6) and his father-in-law Nankiprasad (PW 1), though separately were sleeping not far away from him, (ii) that immediately after his wife Kumudanibai had been injured, the appellant was not to be found in the house, (iii) that he had made a confessional statement before Sukritdas (PW 2) and Raghunandan Prasad Pandey (PW 3), (iv) the dying declaration which Kumudanibai had made before the Tahsildar Satish Chand Upadhyaya (PW 18) and (v) the motive for crime. 2. Held: In the case of both an extra-judicial confession which bas been retracted and the dying declaration it is not as a matter of strict law that a corroboration is needed. It is as a matter of prudence that there should be corroboration in material particulars. There is corroboration in the undisputed facts of the appellant having remained with Kumudanibai for the night and thus having had opportunity to injure her. There is again corroboration of his disappearing from the scene immediately after Kumudanibai came to be injured. There is corroboration that the appellant was in the same village because he was arrested from there later on as established by Anand Ram (PW 17). Again out of the feeling of remorse he had reason to confess his guilt before Sukritdas (PW 2) who being a Kotwar is not a Police Officer or a person in authority so as to render the confession of the appellant inadmissible. There is corroboration of the Basula having remained struck in the face of Kumudanibai in the evidence of Dr. Prakash Narayan Shukla (P. W. 10) and Dr R. A Sharma (P.W. 14) 3. Clearly Kumudanibai died as a direct consequence of this particular injury later on so as to make her statement admissible under section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act. 4. In the foregoing circumstances I concurring with the findings of the learned Sessions Judge hold that the death of Kumudanibai was as a result of the appellant dealing blows on Kumudanibai's face with a Basula with the knowledge that he was likely by his act to cause death but without any intention to cause her death. 4. In the foregoing circumstances I concurring with the findings of the learned Sessions Judge hold that the death of Kumudanibai was as a result of the appellant dealing blows on Kumudanibai's face with a Basula with the knowledge that he was likely by his act to cause death but without any intention to cause her death. The appellant has been rightly found guilt) of offence punishable under section 304, Latter-Part I. P. C. The appellant is a young man having lost his service and having also lost his wife. He bas two infant daughters. These are extenuating circumstances and I feel rigorous imprisonment for three years would meet the ends of justice Sentence reduced from five years to 3 years. Appeal partly allowed.