JUDGMENT Madhusudan Rao, J.- The sole accused in Sessions Case No. 10 of 1978 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge- cum-Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, is the appellant. He was convicted under section 302, Indian Penal Code, and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life on the ground that he caused death of the Galla Narayana aged about 70 years in the night intervening the 17th and 18th of April, 1978. 2. The case of the prosecution is: Galla Narayana, the deceased in this case (who will hereinafter be referred to as the deceased) was a resident of Ameerpet village in Ibraheempatnam taluk of Hyderabad district. After the death of his first wife, he married Balamani (P.W. 3). About seven years before the occurrence, the deceased employed Jogu Yadaiah, the accused, as his farm-servant. Illicit intimacy was developed between P.W. 3 and the accused. One day by the time the deceased returned from Hyderabad City, he found P.W. 3 and the accused in a compromising position. From that time, the deceased was finding fault with P.W. 3 off and on even though she was not faulty and was quarrelling with the accused very often. Vexed with the attitude of the deceased, the accused gave up service under him some time in the year 1977. When the deceased demanded the accused to pay back the amount taken by him in advance, the accused refused to pay the amount. The deceased got a panchayat held before the Sarpanch (P.W. 6). It was found at the panchayat by the Sarpanch that the accused had to pay a sum of Rs. 500 to the deceased. P.W. 6 said that the accused might either pay the entire amount of Rs. 500 or discharge the same by further service under the deceased. The accused agreed to the latter course and worked under the deceased for a few more months and gave up service under the deceased about six months prior to the date of the occurrence when the balance payable by him was about Rs. 300. 3. After giving up service under the deceased, the accused was damaging the electric pump sets fixed to the wells of the deceased in the fields. He was also breaking the ploughs of the deceased when the ploughs were left in the fields. 300. 3. After giving up service under the deceased, the accused was damaging the electric pump sets fixed to the wells of the deceased in the fields. He was also breaking the ploughs of the deceased when the ploughs were left in the fields. The deceased was complaining to the Police Patel (P.W. 1) against the accused and, as advised by the Police Patel (P.W. 1), he did not give any reports to the Police. 4. On 17th April, 1978, Balamani (P.W. 3), and her children went to the temple to participate in the Srirama Navami Festival after their night meals. The deceased left bis house to the field to see the crane, which was kept near the well in his field (that day the deceased got a crane for removing the mud from the well the next day). There is a ‘Vagu’ between the well of the deceased and another known as “Mangaloni Bhavi”. At this ‘Vagu’, the accused attacked the deceased and did him to death by squeezing his neck and strangling him with a kerchief at about 10 p.m. Kandi Venkataiah (P.W. 2), a resident of Ameerpet, saw the accused attacking the deceased near the ‘vagu’ on his way home from his well, which is at a distance of about 50 yards from the ‘vagu’. 5. As the deceased did not return home even by 12 midnight, P.W. 3 went along with a neighbour, Fakira, to the well for the deceased, but could not find him. Early in the morning following that night, P.W. 3 and her son, Yadaiah (P.W. 4) searched for the deceased and found the dead body of the deceased lying near “Mangaloni Bhavi” with his upper-cloth tied tightly round his neck. P.W. 4 immediately reported the matter to the Police Patel (P.W. 1), who sent a report under Exhibit P-1 to the Police at Maisaram. 6. The Head-Constable of Police, Maisaram (P.W. 9) received Exhibit P-1 at about 10 a.m. and registered a case. 7. Shortly after P.W. 1 sent Exhibit P-1 to the Police, P.W. 2 met him and told him that he saw the accused and the deceased quarrelling with each other and the accused beating the deceased the previous night near “Mangaloni Bhavi”. The Head-Constable of Police, Maisaram (P.W. 9) received Exhibit P-1 at about 10 a.m. and registered a case. 7. Shortly after P.W. 1 sent Exhibit P-1 to the Police, P.W. 2 met him and told him that he saw the accused and the deceased quarrelling with each other and the accused beating the deceased the previous night near “Mangaloni Bhavi”. P.W. 1 thereupon sent a further report under Exhibit P-2 to the Police at Maisaram and the same was received by the Head Constable (P.W. 9) about 15 minutes after he registered the First Information Report on the basis of Exhibit P-1. After forwarding Exhibit P-2, P.W. 1 sent one of his kavalkars (P.W. 5) to the house of the accused to bring him, but the accused was not available. In the light of the information he had, P.W. 1 sent the Kavalkar (P.W. 5) to the neighbouring village of Palmakole to bring the accused. 8. The Head-Constable of Police (P.W. 9) came to the village by about 11 a.m. for investigation. P.W. 1 took the Head-Constable (P.W. 9), the Sarpanch (P.W. 6) and others to the scene of occurrence. After reaching the scene of occurrence, P.W. 9 held an inquest over the dead body of the deceased with P.W. 6 and others as inquestdars. He examined P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4 at the inquest. By the time the inquest was over, information was received by P.W. 1 that the accused was brought to the house of P.W. 1 by the kavalkar (P.W. 5) sent by him P.W. 1 went to his house along with P.W. 6. 9. On reaching P.W. 1's House, P.Ws. 1 and 6 questioned the accused about the occurrence. The accused thereupon made a confessional statement, which was reduced into writing by the Sarpanch (P.W. 6) under Exhibit P-3 and P.Ws. 1 and 6 affixed their signs tures in the statement. By about 4 p.m., after completion of the inquest and sending the dead body for post-mortem examination through a Constable (P.W. 8) the Head-Constable (P.W. 9) came to the house of the Police Patel (P.W. 1), who handed over to the Head-Constable (P.W. 9) the accused and Exhibit P-3. 10. By about 4-30 p.m., the Inspector of Police, Ibrahimpatnam (P.W. 10) reached the village and took over investigation from. P.W. 9. He examined P.Ws. 1, 6, 5 and others. 10. By about 4-30 p.m., the Inspector of Police, Ibrahimpatnam (P.W. 10) reached the village and took over investigation from. P.W. 9. He examined P.Ws. 1, 6, 5 and others. After completing the investigation, he filed a charge-sheet, against the accused. 11. The plea of the accused is none of complete denial. 12. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined 10 witnesses in all. P.W. 1 is the Police Patel, Ameerpet village. He deposed to P.W. 4 giving the report, Exhibit P-1, P.W. 2 giving the report Exhibit P-2, and the accused making confession under Ehibit P-3. P.W. 2 is a resident of Ameerpet village. He deposed to his having seen the deceased and the accused quarrelling with each other in the night of the 17th of April, 1978. The witness was treated hostile by the prosecution and was confronted with his’investigation statement before the Police to the effect that he witnessed the accused beating the deceased that night. P.W. 3 is the widow of the deceased while P.W. 4 is the son of the deceased. P.W. 5 is the kavalkar of Ameerpet village, who deposed that he went to the village of Palmakole on the instruction of P.W. 1 on 18th April, 1978 and brought the accused to the house of P.W. 1. P.W. 6 is the Sarpanch, who deposed that, in his presence, the accused made a confession under Exhibit P-3 before the Police Patel (P.W. 1) at the house of the Police Patel (P.W. 1). P.W. 7 is the doctor who conducted the post-mortem examined over the dead body of the deceased. P.W. 8 is the Constable who carried the dead body for post-mortem examination. P.W. 9 is the Head Constable, who registered the First Information Report and made the earlier investigation in the case. P.W. 10 is the Inspector of Police, who completed the investigation and filed the charge-sheet against accused. 13. The accused did not examine any witnesses on his behalf. 14. On a consideration of the evidence, the learned Sessions Judge accepted the case of the prosecution and convicted and sentenced the accused as stated above. 15. This is a case where there is no direct evidence of the alleged murder though there cannot be any doubt that the death of the deceased is the result of a homicide. 14. On a consideration of the evidence, the learned Sessions Judge accepted the case of the prosecution and convicted and sentenced the accused as stated above. 15. This is a case where there is no direct evidence of the alleged murder though there cannot be any doubt that the death of the deceased is the result of a homicide. As pointed out by the learned trial Judge in paragraph 8 of his judgment, the prosecution relies on three circumstances and they are: (1) motive; (2) extra-judicial confession; and (3) the accused and the deceased being last seen quarrelling with each other near the place where the dead body of the deceased was found. 16. By themselves, each of the two circumstances 1 and. 3 cannot be the basis of a conviction. The main stay of the prosecution is on the second circumstances viz., the extra-judicial confession. 17. An extra-judicial confession can be a valid basis for conviction even if it is retracted, provided the Court is satisfied with the voluntariness and truth of the confession by reference to evidence aliunde. It is a well-recognised rule of practice and prudence not to base a conviction even on a judicial confession if it is retracted, unless the confession is corroborated by other evidence in material particulars. The general principles that apply to confessions both judicial and extrajudicial are the same and the only difference-and it is the most important difference-is that, while there is absolute guarantee in the making of the confession, in the former case, the) Courts must be extremely chary and cautious in examining the evidence in regard to the making of the confession in the latter case. Every confession, judicial or extra-judicial, once it is resiled or retracted, must be subjected to two tests: one is for its voluntariness and the other is for its truth. While a judicial confession can be made the basis of a conviction if it satisfies the two tests, an extra-judicial confession has to satisfy an additional test and that is in regard to very making of the confession. While a judicial confession can be made the basis of a conviction if it satisfies the two tests, an extra-judicial confession has to satisfy an additional test and that is in regard to very making of the confession. This additional test is the most important test in extra-judicial confession and it has to be made as the first test before the confession is subjected to the other two tests, as the other two tests can be applied only to confessions which are retracted and no question of retraction arises, unless it is found that a confession was once made. One of the efficacious pieces of evidence which can be easily fabricated is an extra-judicial confession. It would not be difficult for the angry victims of seniors crimes or their unscrupulous associates or over-zealous supporters and sympathisers to give evidence of an extra- judicial confession to satisfy suspicion or grudge. In cases where an extra-judicial confession is the sheet-anchor or chief support of the prosecution and the accused denies the making of the confession, the Court must scrutinise the evidence with utmost care and see if there is most reliable evidence of unimpeachable character in proof of the making of the confession. It is only after deciding this question of fact with regard to the making of the extra-judicial confession that the Court has to consider the question of voluntariness and later the question of truth. The proper course in dealing with extra-judicial confessions is to decide strictly in their order the following three questions: (1) Was the confession made? (2) Is it voluntary? and (3) Is it true? If the first question is answered in the negative, there should be an end of the matter and no futile exercise need be made by deciding the other two questions. Likewise, If the second question is answered in the negative the third question need not be considered. 18. In the light of the above principles, we now proceed to examine the extra-judicial confession in the instant case. P.Ws. 1 and 6 are the only witnesses who speak about the making of the confession. P.W. 1 is the Police Patel while P.W. 6 is the Sarpanch. Their evidence shows that P.W. 6 wrote Exhibit P-3 in the very words of the accused while the accused was making the confessional statement voluntarily. P.Ws. 1 and 6 are the only witnesses who speak about the making of the confession. P.W. 1 is the Police Patel while P.W. 6 is the Sarpanch. Their evidence shows that P.W. 6 wrote Exhibit P-3 in the very words of the accused while the accused was making the confessional statement voluntarily. It is however significant that, while Exhibit P-3 contains the signature of both P.Ws. 1 and 6, it does not contain the signature of the accused. The statement is said to have been made at about 3-15 p.m. at the house of the Police Patel (P.W. 1) with the Sarpanch (P.W. 6) being the scribe of the statement. The Head-Constable of Police (P.W. 9) came to the village even by 11 a.m. and was holding an inquest till 2-30 p.m. He was examining the witnesses at the inquest where P.W. 6 was acting as one of the inquestdars. P.W. 1 also says that he too was present at the inquest. If the kavalkar had really brought the accused from some other village, he would have brought him to the place where the Head-Constable (P.W. 9) was holding the inquest and would not have taken him to the house of the Police Patel (P.W. 1) nor would he keep the accused at the house of the Police Patel until the arrival of the Head-Constable at his house. P.W. 1 says that he left the place of inquest along with P.W. 6 on learning that the accused was brought to his house from Palmakole. If information was received at the place of inquest that the accused was brought from Palmakole, in the normal course. P.W. 1 would have immediately informed the Head-Constable (P.W. 9) and instructions would have been given for the accused being brought to the place where the Head-Constable was investigating. As if P.Ws. 1 and 6 knew that the accused would be making a confession and to see that the confession does not become in admissible on account of the presence of a Police Officer, it is only P.Ws. As if P.Ws. 1 and 6 knew that the accused would be making a confession and to see that the confession does not become in admissible on account of the presence of a Police Officer, it is only P.Ws. 1 and 6 that go to the house of the Police Patel from the place of inquest and record a confessional statement from the accused and the Head-Constable (P.W. 9) arrives at the house of the Police Patel just by the time the recording of the confession is completed so that the admissibility of the confession is in no way affected. The theory of extra-judicial confession pungently smacks of concoction and we are not able to believe that the accused made any extra-judicial confession before P.Ws. 1 and 6 as contained in Exhibit P-3. P.W. 1, the Police Patel, does not appear to be so disinterested as he appears to be. There appears some motive on his part to implicate the accused. It was always the case of P.W. 4 that he merely suspected the accused as the person responsible for the death of his father and that he reported to the Police Patel in the morning of the 18th of April, 1978 expressing only his suspicion. The Police Patel (P.W. 1) however reported in Exhibit P-1 as if P.W. 4 was a direct accusation against the accused. He did not obtain any signed statement from P.W. 4 nor forward any such statement to the Police. After sending Exhibit P-1 report, P.W. 1 sent another report, Exhibit P-2 stating that P.W. 2 witnessed the deceased and the accused quarrelling with each other and the accused beating the deceased in the night of the 17th of April, 1978. Here again, he did not obtain any signed statement from P.W. 2 nor forward any such statement to the Police. According to his own evidence, he sent his kavalkar (P.W. 5) to bring the accused. Here again, he did not obtain any signed statement from P.W. 2 nor forward any such statement to the Police. According to his own evidence, he sent his kavalkar (P.W. 5) to bring the accused. He examined the accused at his house and got recorded a confessional statement by the Sarpanch (P.W. 6) at about 3-15 p.m., even though the investigating Police Officer was in the village having come there at about 11 a.m. The anxiety of P. W. 1 to implicate the accused in the case is manifest and when he and his colleague, the Sarpanch (P.W. 6), are the only witnesses to speak about the confession, we have no doubt that the evidence of the confession springs from a tainted source and does not deserve acceptance. Once the confession. Exhibit P-3, is eschewed from consideration, the other two circumstances are rendered innocuous. Mere existence of motive may rouse suspicion, but that cannot carry the prosecution case any far in the absence of any other evidence connecting the accused with the crime. The circumstance of the deceased and the accused having been last seen quarrelling with each other near the scene of occurrence is sought to be proved by the prosecution only by P.W. 2 and he was treated hostile in so far as he simply said that, on that night, “while returning I heard some noise from the other side of the Vagu near Mangaloni Bhavi…….. I did not see the persons and I only heard the voices”. He was no doubt confronted with his statement during the investigation, but that statement cannot be treated as substantive evidence. 19. Under the above circumstances, the conviction and sentence awarded to the accused by the trial Court for the murder of the deceased are set aside and the accused is acquitted. 20. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the appellant is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. D.V.P. ----- Appeal allowed.