BYAS, J.—This is a Jail appeal by accused Prema Ram against the Judgment dated November 30, 1978 of the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 Hanu-mangarh convicting the appellant under sec. 302 I.PC. and sentencing 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 Sapari 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 Das, 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), a resident of accuseds vill-age. Bhoora Ram (P.W.1) told Premdass 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 Das (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 assembeled there as to how his wife got dead. It is further alleged that before all those persons, accused admitted that he lost temper and thereafter, strangulated his wife Supari by fastening a rope around her neck. A report (Ex. P.l) 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 examina-nation 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 of death could be ascertained. The reportr issued by him is Ex. P6. The accused was arrested. 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 of death could be ascertained. The reportr issued by him is Ex. P6. The accused was arrested. After when the investigation was over, the Police submitted a challan against the accused in the Court of Munsif & 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 Secs 302 and 201 I.P.C. against the accused, to which, he pleaded not guilty\ and faced the trial. During trial, the prosecution examined 14 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. Bhatnagar learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Mr. Niyajuddin 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 or record even to suggest that the death of Mst. Supari was homicidal. The learned Amicus Curiae submitted that the medical evidence of Dr. Sahi Ram (P.W.10) was nill 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 (PW 10), submitted that though the medical evidence is not helpful to the prosecution, yett here is an overwhelming 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. Sahi Ram (PW 10), submitted that though the medical evidence is not helpful to the prosecution, yett here is an overwhelming 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. Needlees to say that in order to make out an offence of murder s. 300 I.P.C., the prosecution must prove that the death of the victim was 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 post mortem 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 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 discripant and contradictory, which should not be readily believed upon. On the other hand, it was contended by the leanred Public Prosecutor that as 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. On the other hand, it was contended by the leanred Public Prosecutor that as 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 PW 1 Bhoora Ram, PW 2 Kashi Ram, P.W.5 Gopal, P.W.6 Premdass, PW 7 Dhanpat Ram, PW 8 Bhanwar Singh 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 Premdass 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 Bhooraram has been confronted with his police statement (Ex.D.l) (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 Asharam, Panchas were present in the room All the three witnesses viz., Laxman Ram, Asharam and Virbal have not been examined by the prosecution. P.W. 2, the brother of the deceased victim has stated that he met Sarpanch in the evening and the Sarpanch told him to come his residence in the morning. He has further stated that he and his father went at the residence of the Sarpanch, where the meeting of the Panchayat was called for. He has also stated that Asha, Ram 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 also stated that Asha, Ram 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 outside 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, Ishardass and Kisnaram. but they have not given any idea about the occurrence. He has further stated that the door of the room was closed and thereafter, enquiries were made. According to this witness, after making an enquiries. Sarpanch came out and informed the gatering about the extra judicial confession so made before him. There is everlikelihood that Kashi Ram may be out side 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 Premaram and his father at his residence but he has not informed the police that at the residence of Ishwardass. Premaram has told that Gohra has beaten the Supari. He has also given the same version which his brother P.W. 2 Kashiram has given that some persons were sitting side the one 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 Das also stands on the same footing being the father of the deceased victim. 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 Das 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 closed at the relevant time. Thus, the statement of PW.6 Premdas 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 Lachhmaram 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 comitted 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 Premdas 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 called 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 Paundas. This witness has further stated that he is not in a position to say that the persons sitting out side the room have enquired from the accused or not ? He has stated that the Sarpanch came out of the room and informed the gathering about the extra Judicial confession made by the accused. P.W.8 Bhanwar Singh has been declared hostile as stated earlier and he does not support the case of the prosecution. 12. P.W.12 Ram Karan is the other witness relating to extra judicial confession. This 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. 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 successfuly 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. 15. In the result, we allow the appeal of the accused-appellant Prema Ram and set aside his conviction and sentence under ss. 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.