Judgment HONBLE BYAS J. ( 1 ) THIS is a Jail appeal by accused Prema Ram against the Judgment dated November 30, 1978 of the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh convicting the appellant under section 302 I. P. C. and sentencing to him to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 100/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo one months rigorous imprisonment. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the prosecution case is ,that the deceased victim Supari was the wife of the accused-appellant Prema Ram. Relations between them were not happy. It is alleged that the accused committed the murder of his wife Supari and later on, burned her dead body with the help of some persons. P. W. 6 Prem Dass, the father of the deceased victim, was going in a bus from his village Kamad to village Ratanpura. He met Bhoora Ram (P. W. 1), resident of accused village. Bhoora Ram (P. W. 1) told Prem Dass that death of a woman had taken place in his village. During talks he came to know that the deceased victim was his daughter. Bhoora Ram told him that his daughter was no more alive. Prem Dass (P. W. 6) entertained suspicion about the death of his daughter. He along with his sons came to the village Birkali and contacted some persons. It is alleged that a meeting of many persons took place at the house of Sarpanch Laxman Ram. Accused was also called there and was asked by all those persons assembled there as to how his wife got dead. It is further alleged that before all these persons, accused. admitted that he lost temper and thereafter, strangulated his wife Supari by fastening a rope around her neck. A report (Ex. P. 1) was, consequently, drawn up and was submitted to the Police Station, Nohar by Kashiram (P. W. 2, brother of the deceased victim ). The Police registered a case and proceeded with investigation. The dead body was disinterred from the grave and was sent for post-mortem examination. The post-mortem examination was conducted by Dr. Sahi Ram (P. W. 10), the then Medical Officer Incharge, Government Hospital, Bhadra on September 20, 1976. The Doctor was of the opinion that - since the dead body was in a very advanced stage of decomposition, no cause 6f death could be ascertained. The post-mortem examination was conducted by Dr. Sahi Ram (P. W. 10), the then Medical Officer Incharge, Government Hospital, Bhadra on September 20, 1976. The Doctor was of the opinion that - since the dead body was in a very advanced stage of decomposition, no cause 6f death could be ascertained. The report is end by him is Ex. P. 6. The accused wasp arrested. After when the investigation was over, the police submitted challan against the accused in the Court of Munsif and, Judicial Magistrate, Nohar, who in his turn, committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions Judge. ( 3 ) THE case came up for trial before the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh who framed the charges under Sections 302 and 201 I. P. C. against the accused, to which, he pleaded not guilty and faced the trial. During trial, the prosecution examined witnesses and filed some documents. In defence, the accused adduced no evidence. On the conclusion of the trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence relating to the extra judicial confession of the accused held the charge proved against him. The accused was consequently convicted and sentenced as mentioned above. Aggrieved against his conviction and sentence, the accused-appellant has taken this appeal. ( 4 ) WE have heard Mr. B. K. Bhatnager, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Mr. Niyajudeen Khan, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and have also carefully gone through the case file. ( 5 ) IT was contended by the learned Amicus Curiae that no offence of murder was committed by the accused because there was no evidence to suggest that the deceased victim Mst. Supari was done to death in an unnatural manner. It was argued that there is absolutely no evidence on record even to suggest that the death of Mst. Supari was homicidal. The learned Amicus Curiae submitted that the medical evidence of Sri Sahi Ram (P. W. 10) was nil on the, point and does not help the prosecution in any manner. Learned Public Prosecutor faced with this difficulty relating to the evidence of Dr. Sahi Ram (P. W. 10), submitted that though the medical evidence is not helpful to the prosecution yet there is an ever whelming evidence relating to the extra judicial confession of the accused. Learned Public Prosecutor faced with this difficulty relating to the evidence of Dr. Sahi Ram (P. W. 10), submitted that though the medical evidence is not helpful to the prosecution yet there is an ever whelming evidence relating to the extra judicial confession of the accused. The evidence relating to extra judicial confession was sufficient to seek the conviction of the accused. ( 6 ) WE have given our thoughtful consideration to the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. ( 7 ) NEEDLESS to say that in order to make out an offence of murder under Section 300 I. P. C. , the prosecution must prove that the death of the victim homicidal. Unless the prosecution establishes that the death of the victim was homicidal, the accused cannot be held criminally liable for the death of the victim. P. W. 10 Dr. Sahi Ram, who conducted the postmortem examination of the victims dead body stated very clearly that since the dead body was in a very advanced stage of decomposition, the cause of death could not be ascertained. It is interesting to note that though no ligature marks were found on the victims dead body, yet it is expected that internal injuries on the neck, veins, bones, etc. should be there. Dr. Sahi Ram (P. W. 10) has not stated that any internal injury was found in the neck of the victim. In these circumstances, we are unable to agree with the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the death of Mst. Supari was homicidal in nature. ( 8 ) IT was next argued that the evidence of the witnesses relating to the extra judicial confession goes out when the medical evidence does not establish the death of victim to be homicidal. It was also argued that there was no occasion for the accused to make a confession of his guilt. The death of Mst. Supari had taken place nearly 7 or 8 days before the First Information Report was filed. The accused was not a fool so as to make the confession to implicate himself. It was further argued that the evidence of the witnesses speaking about the extra judicial confession was discrepant and contradictory, which should not be readily believed upon. Supari had taken place nearly 7 or 8 days before the First Information Report was filed. The accused was not a fool so as to make the confession to implicate himself. It was further argued that the evidence of the witnesses speaking about the extra judicial confession was discrepant and contradictory, which should not be readily believed upon. On the other hand, it was contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that as a number of the witnesses are not interested persons, the evidence of those persons should not be rejected merely because the medical evidence does not help the prosecution. ( 9 ) IN order to prove the extra judicial confession alleged to have been made by the accused the prosecution examined P. W. I Bhoora Ram, P. W. 2 Kashiram, P. W. 5 Gopal, P. W. 6 Prem Dass, p. W. 7 Dhanpatram, P. W. 8 Bhanwar Sing and P. W. 12 Ramkaran and out of them, P. W. 8 Bhanwar Singh declared hostile. The remaining witnesses, no doubt, stated that in the meeting called for the purpose, the accused was invited there and he was asked as to how the death of his wife had taken place. The accused stated before all of them that since he lost temper, he put his wife to death by strangulation. This meeting is alleged to have taken place at the house of the Sarpanch Laxman Ram under his Chairmanship Laxman Ram has not been produced in evidence. We have gone through the evidence of all the above witnesses. P. W. 6 Prem Dass is the father of the deceased victim and P. W. 2 Kashi Ram and P. W. 5 Gopal are the brothers of the deceased victim. P. W. 1 Bhoora Ram has been confronted with his police statement (Ex. D. I, Part A to B ). He has denied that part of the statement in which it has been mentioned that the accused was taken at a separate place and thereafter, the enquiry was made by the Sarpanch. He has also stated that Laxman Ram, Sarpanch, Virbal and Asha ram, Panchas were present in the room. All the three witnesses viz. , Laxmanram, Asharam and Virbal have not been examined by the prosecution. He has also stated that Laxman Ram, Sarpanch, Virbal and Asha ram, Panchas were present in the room. All the three witnesses viz. , Laxmanram, Asharam and Virbal have not been examined by the prosecution. P. W. 2, the brother of the deceased victim has stated that he met the Sarpanch in the evening and the Sarpanch told him to come to his residence in the morning. He has further stated that he and his father went to the residence of the Sarpanch, where the meeting of the Panchayat was called for. He has also stated that Asharam Panch was there and the Sarpanch was conducting the meeting. He has further stated that some persons were sitting in the room where the enquiry was made and some persons were sitting outside the room. He has stated that in the room, only Lachhmanram Sarpanch, Dhanpat, Ramkaran, Bhooraram and Asharam were there and the other persons were sitting out side the room. He has not stated in his statement that he was sitting in the room. The probability that he may be sitting outside the room with the other villagers cannot be ruled out. P. W. 2 Kashiram has been confronted with his police statement (Ex. D. 4) and there are material contradictions in his statement. Apart from that, he has stated in his statement, that earlier enquiries were made from the accused by Premaram, Ishwardass and itisnaram but they have not given any idea about the occurrence. He has further stated that die door of the room was closed and thereafter, enquiries were made. According to this witness, after making an enquiry, Sarpanch came out and informed the gathering about the extrajudicial confession so made before him. There is every likelihood that Kashi Ram may be outside the room and he might have heard about the extra judicial confession of the accused from the Sarpanch. ( 10 ) P. W. 5 Gopal is the brother of the deceased victim. He has stated that he has informed the police that Ishwardass called the accused Prema Ram and his father at his residence but he has not informed the police that at the residence of Ishwardass, Prema Ram has told that Gohra has beaten Supari. ( 10 ) P. W. 5 Gopal is the brother of the deceased victim. He has stated that he has informed the police that Ishwardass called the accused Prema Ram and his father at his residence but he has not informed the police that at the residence of Ishwardass, Prema Ram has told that Gohra has beaten Supari. He has also given the same version which his brother P. W. 2 Kashiram has given that some persons were sitting inside the room and some persons were sitting outside the room. He has admitted that his family members were sitting outside the room where other villagers were sitting. It is alleged that extra judicial confession has been made in the room and the doors were closed at that time. Thus the evidence of Gopal (P. W. 5) does not inspire confidence and he cannot be considered as a witness for the purpose of extra Judicial confession. P. W. 6 Prem Dass also stands on the same footing being the father of the deceased victim. Apart from that the position as it stands is that he was sitting outside the room and the extra judicial confession was made inside the room and the room was losed at the relevant time. Thus, the statement of P. W, 6 Prem Das also does not inspire confidence as far as the question of extra Judicial confession is concerned. ( 11 ) P. W. 7 Dhanpatram has stated that Sarpanch Laxmanram convened the meeting and he enquired from the accused about the mode of committing the murder of his. wife deceased Supari and the accused confessed that he has committed the murder by strangulation. This witness has specifically stated that at the time when extra judicial confession was made, the family members of deceased Supari viz. , P. W. 2 Kashiram, P. W. 5 Gopal and P. W. 6 Premdass were not present in the room and they were sitting outside the room. In the cross examination, this witness has stated that members of the Panchayat were not called and, before it, he was never caned in any of the Panchayat or the meeting convened by the Sarpanch in such matters. He has further stated that the persons who were sitting outside the room were at the distance of about 7 paundass. In the cross examination, this witness has stated that members of the Panchayat were not called and, before it, he was never caned in any of the Panchayat or the meeting convened by the Sarpanch in such matters. He has further stated that the persons who were sitting outside the room were at the distance of about 7 paundass. This ,witness has further stated that he is not in a position to say that the persons sitting outside the room have enquire from the accused or not? He has stated that th4e Sarpanch came out of the room and informed the gathering about the extra Judicial confession made by the accused. P. W. 8 Bhanwarsingh has been declared hostile as stated earlier and he does not support the case of the prosecution. ( 12 ) P. W. 12 Ramkaran is the other witness relating to extra judicial confession. The witness has already been disbelieved by the trial Court and we do not find any reason to disagree with the finding of the trial court. ( 13 ) THUS, the only piece of evidence against the accused is oral extra judicial confession. An extra judicial confession is taken to be a very weak type of evidence and unless corroboration comes from independent sources, no conviction can be based thereon. We do not mean to say that no conviction on uncorroborated extra judicial confession can be based but before a conviction is based on uncorroborated extra judicial confession, the evidence relating to extra-judicial confession must be convincing and should inspire the confidence. The evidence relating to extra judicial confession of the accused in the instant case does not successfully pass this test. We may also state that the prosecution has not produced Laxman Ram Sarpanch, Secretary of Panchayat and the other persons who attended the meeting inside the room. This permits us to raise a presumption against the prosecution that had these persons been examined, they would not have supported their case. ( 14 ) FOR the reasons aforesaid, we are unable to maintain the conviction of the accused as the case against him is not beyond reasonable doubt. The benefit of doubt must go to the accused. This permits us to raise a presumption against the prosecution that had these persons been examined, they would not have supported their case. ( 14 ) FOR the reasons aforesaid, we are unable to maintain the conviction of the accused as the case against him is not beyond reasonable doubt. The benefit of doubt must go to the accused. ( 15 ) IN the result, we allow the appeal of the accused-appellant Prema Ram and set aside his conviction and sentence under Sections 302 and 201 I. P. C. He is acquitted of the aforesaid Charges. He is serving out the sentence and shall be immediately set forth at liberty if not wanted in any other case. Appeal allowed.