JUDGMENT V. N. Varma, J. 1. THIS is an appeal from the judgment and order of Sri H. C. Lal, VI Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur by which he convicted the appellant (Smt. Rajjoo) under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced her to imprisonment for life under the first count and two years' R. I. under the second count. 2. THE appellant is the second wife of one Bankat; he had married her after the death of his first wife. From his first wife he had one son and a daughter. THE name of the daughter was Chhidiya deceased. At the time of the incident (July 1973) she was about ten or eleven years old. From the appellant also Bankat had several children. THE appellant illtreated Chhidiya and often used to beat her. On 3-7-11973 Chhidiya went out to gather 'Jamun' without telling the appellant about it and returned to her house at about 5 p. m. As she returned very late the appellant lost her temper and started assaulting her first with a Peerha and then with a Hansiya. She was badly injured and she succumbed to her injuries. THEreafter, it is said that the appellant took her dead body to the 'Khandhar' of Mahangu and concealed it there. Bankat came to his house in the night and started searching Chhidiya. Ultimately, with the help of Pancham (PW 3) and Mahangu (PW 5) he discovered the dead body of Chhidiya in the Khandhar of Mahangu. All the three of them then questioned the appellant about the death of Chhidiya and she confessed to have killed her and concealed her dead body in the Khandhar of Mahangu. In the morning news spread! in the village that the appellant had killed Chhidiya. Roop Lal (PW 1) Pradhan of the village and Ram Asrey (PW 2) went to the house of the appellant in the morning and they also questioned her about the death of Chhidiya. Before them also she confessed that she had killed Chhidiya. She implored them to excuse her. After a while Roop Lal dictated a report to Ram Asrey and then sent it to P. S. Ghatampur through one Maiku Lal. Maiku Lal delivered the report at P. S. Ghatampur at 6.30 a.m. On the basis of that report a case was registered against the appellant. She implored them to excuse her. After a while Roop Lal dictated a report to Ram Asrey and then sent it to P. S. Ghatampur through one Maiku Lal. Maiku Lal delivered the report at P. S. Ghatampur at 6.30 a.m. On the basis of that report a case was registered against the appellant. S. I. Ram Kirat Singh was present at the police station when the report was received and he immediately left for the spot reaching there at about 9 a. m. He first held an inquest on the dead body of Chhidiya and then sent is duly sealed to Kanpur proper for post-mortem examination. The post-mortem examination on the dead body of Chhidiya was conducted by Dr. R. P. Saxena on 5-7-1973 at about 2 p. m. Examining externally Dr. Saxena found the following antemortem injuries on the dead body: 3. EXAMINING internally Dr. R. P. Saxena found (i) fracture of mandible under injury no. 8 (ii) fracture of 2nd to 5th ribs on the right side and 2nd to 7th ribs on the left side (iii) pleura contused and injured under the fractured ribs and (iv) right and left lungs injured and congested. 4. ACCORDING to auto spy surgeon, death of the deceased was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of the fracture of ribs. After the usual investigation was over, S. I. Ram Kirat Singh submitted a charge sheet against the appellant. 5. THE appellant pleaded not guilty and repudiated the truth of the allegations made against her. She admitted that Chhidiya was her step daughter but she denied to have ever beaten her. 6. THE learned Additional Sessions Judge found the prosecution case proved against the appellant and he, therefore, convicted and sentenced her as indicated above. Aggrieved, she has come up in appeal to this Court. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at sufficient length and after doing so we are firmly of the view that this appeal must be allowed. We find that the court below has not appreciated the evidence adduced in this case in a proper manner with the result that it fell in error and passed a wholly wrong order of conviction against the appellant. There is no direct evidence in this case to show that the appellant had murdered Chhidiya. We find that the court below has not appreciated the evidence adduced in this case in a proper manner with the result that it fell in error and passed a wholly wrong order of conviction against the appellant. There is no direct evidence in this case to show that the appellant had murdered Chhidiya. We find that the court below has convicted her on the basis of her extra-judicial confession only which she was said to have made before Roop Lal (PW 1), Ram Asrey (PW 2). Pancham (PW 3) and Mahangu (PW 5). At the time of trial she denied to have made any extra-judicial confession before these persons. This means that even if she had made a confession she retracted it at the first opportunity. It is open to the court to give effect to the sound presumption that what a person wilfully states against his interest is likely to be true and to convict him on his confession alone. But in practice, courts try to guard themselves against the danger demonstrated by experience of persons falsely implicating themselves for reasons which may not be apparent. With this end they test and examine confessions with reference to their intrinsic probability and in the light of the extrinsic evidence in order to satisfy themselves that the statements of fact made ia the confession, so far as they can be checked, are true. The truth or falsehood of a confession has, therefore, to be weighed by the court in the light of all the facts and surrounding circumstances. The duty cast on the courts becomes all the more difficult when they are confronted with confession which has been retracted as in this case. According to Roop Lal (PW 1) the appellant had told him and Ram Asrey (PW 2) that she had killed Chhidiya by giving her Hansiya and Peerha blows. The post-mortem examination report of Chhidiya does not show that she had received any incised wound. This means that no Hansiya was used in the assault made on her. The only injuries tin at were found on her body were contusions and contused wounds. These contusions and contused wounds were obviously caused by some blunt weapon. Seeing the dimensions of the contusions we do not think that they were caused with a Peerha. This means that no Hansiya was used in the assault made on her. The only injuries tin at were found on her body were contusions and contused wounds. These contusions and contused wounds were obviously caused by some blunt weapon. Seeing the dimensions of the contusions we do not think that they were caused with a Peerha. Peerha is a thing on which people sit and its width is generally never less than 5 or 6 inches. A thing of such a width cannot produce the contusions which we find on the body of Chhidiya. Our impression is that these contusions and contused wounds had been caused with a Danda or lathi. Therefore, on the face of it, the so called confessions made by the appellant is false. A confession which is on the face of it false can never be made the basis of conviction. 7. RAM Asrey (PW 2) also stated that the appellant had confessed before him and Roop Lal (PW 1) that she had killed Chhidiya. He, however, did not mention the weapon with which she was said to have caused injuries to Chhidiya. However, in the report which he had scribed he had mentioned that the appellant had given out that she had assaulted Chhidiya with 'Hansiya' and 'Peerha'. He could not have written such a thing if he had not been told like that by the appellant. This means that: according to this witness also the facts stated in the confession do not accord with the actuality of the matter and, therefore, are not correct. As stated above a false confession can hardly be relied upon. 8. PANCHAM (PW 3) and Mahangn (PW 5) have also stated that the appellant had confessed before them that she had killed Chhidiya. In her statement under Section 323 CrPC it was, however, not put to her that she had confessed before these two persons that she had killed Chhidiya. That being so, no importance can be attached to their evidence regarding the so called confession made by the appellant. In this case we find that a blood stained Hansiya was recovered from the house of the appellant at her pointing out, and according to the prosecution it was this Hansiya that was allegedly used by the appellant in the assault made on Chhidiya. In this case we find that a blood stained Hansiya was recovered from the house of the appellant at her pointing out, and according to the prosecution it was this Hansiya that was allegedly used by the appellant in the assault made on Chhidiya. No incised wound of any kind had been found on the body of Chhidiya and there was, therefore,, no question of any Hansiya having been used in the assault made on her. The recovery of bloodstained Hansiya from the house of the appellant was, therefore, totally false. If the Investigating Agency could falsely fabricate this piece of evidence it can also fabricate the evidence of confession. 9. THUS, from a perusal of what we have mentioned above it is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant. The evidence of extra-judicial confession available in this case is not such on which any reliance can be placed by any Court. It is most unlikely that after killing Chhidiya the appellant would have been overtaken by such a sense of remorse that she would have confessed her guilt Before people with whom she had not such concern. The evidence of extra-judicial-confession that has been adduced in this case, to our mind, is nothing but a concoction pure and simple. If this confession is ignored then there is nothing to show that this crime was the handiwork of the appellant. The appellant, therefore, deserves to be acquitted. 10. IN the result, we allow this appeal and set aside the conviction and sentences passed against the appellant. She is on bail, her bail bonds are discharged and she need not surrender to them. Appeal allowed.