JUDGMENT 1. - This is a criminal appeal by Chanda, who has been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur District Jaipur, under Section 302, IPC, and sentenced to imprisonment for life, for committing murder of Prabhatiya Mina resident of village Rampura. 2. The prosecution case as set up, in brief is as under. The deceased-victim Prabhatiya Mina was a resident of village Rampura and used to work as a labourer at bus-stand Borda. The accused is a truck driver and used to work at Borda-Dam. He picked up some acquaintance with the deceased-victim. As usual, the deceased-victim went towards Borda on 25-6-74, but did not return in the evening. His brother Gyarsilal (PW 8) tried to find him out, but with no success. 2 or 3 days afterwards, he was informed by Bholaram (PW 2) that he had seen the accused and Prabhatiya going together from bus-stand Borda towards Neemla. In the after-noon of the same day, Gyarsilal was informed by one Bhagwana Lohar that a dead body was lying near village Neemla with a blanket and Dhoti. Gyarsilal took Narain (PW 15) and Ramdhan (PW 18) with him and they all went towards village Neemla. In the Jungle, they found some bones of a human-being lying. One blanket (Ex. 7), one Dhoti (Ex 8) and one Baniyan (Ex. 9) were also lying near the bones. These three persons returned from that place. Gyarsilal collected some persons and told them that his brother Prabhatiya was seen with the accused and he had a strong suspicion against him for the disappearance of his brother. They all went to Borda bus stand. The accused was found there. These persons viz. Ganga Singh (PW 1), Kalyan Sahaya (PW 9), Har Sahaya (PW 6). Birdha (PW 17), and Gyarislal (PW 8) contacted the accused and asked him about the deceased-victim. The accused confessed before them that he had killed Prabhatiya. Seetaram (PW 2) was also present there and told them that the accused had pledged wrist-watch (Ex. I) with him for a sum of Rs. 20/-. This wrist-watch belonged to the deceased-victim. Gyarsilal (PW 8) went to police station Jamva Ramgarh and verbally lodged report (Ex. P 7) of the occurrence. The police registered a case and proceeded with investigation. Seetaram (PW 2) produced the wrist-watch (Ex. 1) before police. It was seized and sealed. The accused was arrested on 30-6-74. 20/-. This wrist-watch belonged to the deceased-victim. Gyarsilal (PW 8) went to police station Jamva Ramgarh and verbally lodged report (Ex. P 7) of the occurrence. The police registered a case and proceeded with investigation. Seetaram (PW 2) produced the wrist-watch (Ex. 1) before police. It was seized and sealed. The accused was arrested on 30-6-74. In consequence of the information furnished by him whilst under police custody, the bones of the deceased-victim were recovered. In consequence of the further information furnished by him on 5-7-74 whilst under police custody, one pair of shoes (Ex. 14), gold Jantar (Ex. 2), one pair of gold Murkis (Ex. 3) and a knife (Ex. 13) were recovered from the different places. The clothes found near the bones were sent for chemical examination and they all were found stained with human blood. After when the investigation was over, the police presented a challan against the accused in the court of the Additional Munsiff & Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jaipur District Jaipur, who in his turn committed him to stated trial in the court. Charges u)ss. 364 and 302, IPC were framed against the accused. 3. The accused pleaded not guilty and faced the trial. He denounced the whole prosecution story as a false and fabricated piece of concoction and claimed absolute innocence. 4. In the course of trial, the prosecution examined 20 witnesses while in defence, no evidence was adduced by the accused. 5. The trial court after hearing the arguments and, considering the record, convicted and sentenced the appellant, as mentioned above. 6. Shri. A.K. Gupta, the learned Advocate, appearing for the appellant, has submitted that there is no evidence that Prabhatiya has died. Merely, the finding of some bones in Jungle is not enough for conviction. 7. It was argued that, according to the decision of the Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Bhajan Singh, AIR 1975 SC 258 , the dead body when found in a decomposed stage, should be sent to the anatomy expert, and if that is not done, the accused should not suffer. In that case question was, whether the death was due to the strangulation, and after performing the postmortem, the hyoid bone and cervical vertebra were not sent to the Professor of Anatomy to find out that the death was due to the strangulation. In that case question was, whether the death was due to the strangulation, and after performing the postmortem, the hyoid bone and cervical vertebra were not sent to the Professor of Anatomy to find out that the death was due to the strangulation. The Sessions Judge in that case gave benefit of it to the prosecution, and this was deprecated by the Apex Court. Even then, the Supreme Court examined other evidence and found it to be unreliable. 8. In our opinion, the above principle cannot given any benefit to the appellant in the present case. Here, in the instant case, the dead body was not found. All that was found was some bones. At the site where, the bones were found, the blanket (Ex. 7), torn pieces of under-wear (Ex. 10) Dhoti (Ex. 8), and one comb (Ex. 12) and a plastic thread (Ex. 11), were found, and they have been identified by Gyarsilal (PW 8) who is none else but real brother of the deceased. On the basis of the above, it was held by the trial court that the death of Prabhatiya-deceased is proved. It may also be mentioned that in the present case, the bones were sent to the chemical examiner, and he had opined that they were of human being and, who was nearly of the age of 18 years, which also corroborates the finding of the death. 9. The next question which arises for consideration is, whether there is evidence connecting the accused with the crime. Shri Gupta has vehemently submitted that the extra judicial confession is very weak type of the evidence, and the very fact that eight witnesses have been examined to prove the extra judicial confession, shows that they are concocted. It cannot be said to be sufficient to connect the accused with the crime. 10. Shri Gupta attacked the credibility of the other evidence and other witnesses who have proved the recovery of the above said articles and other circumstances against the appellant. 11. The learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the trial court and tried to repeal the arguments of Shri Gupta. We find that there are eight witnesses. viz. Gangasingh (PW I ), Seetaram (PW 2). Gyarsilal (PW 8). Kalyansingh (PW 9), Harshaya tPW 17) Birdha, Ramdhan (PW 18) and Badrinarain (PW 20) to prove the extra judicial confession. 12. The learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the trial court and tried to repeal the arguments of Shri Gupta. We find that there are eight witnesses. viz. Gangasingh (PW I ), Seetaram (PW 2). Gyarsilal (PW 8). Kalyansingh (PW 9), Harshaya tPW 17) Birdha, Ramdhan (PW 18) and Badrinarain (PW 20) to prove the extra judicial confession. 12. Gyarsilal (PW 8) is the real brother of the deceased. He searched for his brother Prabhatiya Bholaram (PW 2) informed him that he had seen Prabhatiya with the accused going towards the river. After being certain that the bones and the clothes lying in the jungle were of his brother Pratbhatiya, he contacted Ganga Singh (PW 1), Har Sahaya (PW 16 ) and, others. They all went to Borda bus stand. The accused was found present there. He was asked about the whereabouts of Prabhatiya The accused hesitated and became perplexed. After sometime, accused gave out and confessed that he killed Prabhatiya Mina. 13. It was then that the report was made in the police station by Gyarsilal. 14. The extra judicial confession story finds support from FIR (Ex. P 7.) Ganga Singh (PW 1) has supported this. Seetaram (PW 2) has also stated that Kalyan Sahaya, Ganga Singh, Gyarsilal and others came to him at Borda Dam where the accused was found and when the accused was questioned about Prabhatiya, he tried to avoid but, later on, confessed that he had killed Prabhatiya. Kalyan Sahaya (PW 9), Har Sahaya (PW 16) and Sirdda (PW 17) supported the above version. Ramdhan (PW 18) also supported the above version. No grudge or against the accused or otherwise interested in implicating him on a false charge of murder has come in evidence to discredit them. Most of them are neither caste fellow of the victims-deceased and no suggestion has been made by the accused either in cross- examination or examination-in-chief nor Shri Gupta has been able to point as to why these eight persons belonging to the different communities should join in implicating the accused falsely in a heinous offence of murder. 15. Undoubtedly, these witnesses have got no and, therefore, they can safely be relied upon and believed. It is true that extra judicial confession is normally treated as weak type of evidence. 15. Undoubtedly, these witnesses have got no and, therefore, they can safely be relied upon and believed. It is true that extra judicial confession is normally treated as weak type of evidence. In our opinion, the present one is an exceptional case where, the extra judicial confession is proved by the eight witnesses. In the circumstances, mentioned above, this fact becomes piece of evidence. 16. This evidence is then supported by the discovery of gold Janter (Ex. 2) and gold Murkis pair (Ex. 3) in consequence of the information furnished by the accused while he was in judicial custody; and these gold ornaments belonged to the deceased-Prabhatiya, as proved by Gyarsilal (PW 8). This evidence was allowed to go unchallenged as Gyarsilal was not at all cross-examined by the accused on this point. Ex. 2 & Ex. 3 and identification of these ornaments by the brother of the deceased appear to be credible, and reliable. 17. The information of the recovery has been proved by Rainchandra Kalla, SI Police (Ex. 21), who also proved the information which he recorded in Ex. P 27. Ramchandra has given a detail story of the information of the recovery and preparation of the seizure memo (Ex. P 17). The accused gave him further information that the gold murkis were sold to Ramawatar (PW6) for a sum of Rs. 3001-and they were produced by Ramawatar (PW 6) to the Police and, the seizure memo (Ex. P 5) was also prepared by the Police. Kalyan Sahaya (PW 9) is a motbir witness of this fact. 18. Ramawater (PW 6) has deposed that he was acquainted with the accused, as he used to drive the truck of one Niranjan Singh ; and who came to him and offered to sell him a pair of good murkis. Ex. 4 is the document of sale, and at place X, the accused appended his thumb impression which, is proved by this witness Ramawatar (PW 6). It would thus be seen that the recovery of both the ornaments of the deceased are proved at the instance of the accused. This certainly provided an important link in the circumstantial evidence against the accused. Then, there is wrist watch (Ex. 1) which used to be worn by the deceased and belonged to Prabhatiya. This fact is proved by the testimony of Gyarsilal (PW 8). This certainly provided an important link in the circumstantial evidence against the accused. Then, there is wrist watch (Ex. 1) which used to be worn by the deceased and belonged to Prabhatiya. This fact is proved by the testimony of Gyarsilal (PW 8). This wrist-watch was pledged to Seetaram (PW 2) for a sum of Rs. 20/-. It is noteworthy that on the same day, when Gangasingh (PW 1) and Gyarsilal (PW 8) were searching for the deceased and then came to find out the accused, Seetaram (PW 2) told them that he (accused) had pledged a wrist watch to him. The accused has denied pledging of this watch with this witness. This is of no consequence, and it is not imaginable that this witness would falsely introduce the story of pledging the wrist watch (Ex. 1) with him by the accused. 19. Then, there is evidence of having last seen the accused and the deceased Prabhatiya going together. This evidence has not been believed by the trial court and the learned Public Prosecutor has also not believed for placing reliance upon it. We would, therefore, like to analyse and discuss this evidence. 20. In our opinion, the circumstantial evidence consisting of extra judicial confession, the information, under S. 27 of the Evidence Act, resulting in recovery of two ornaments of the deceased, and further recovery of the wrist-watch of the deceased from the person with whom the accused has pledged it, provides complete link of circumstances to prove the guilt of the accused. We are, in fact, much impressed by the extra-judicial confession because, the manner in which it was made when such a party came to find out the accused, goes to show that it is truthful and natural. 21. We are, therefore, convinced that the conviction of the accused under s. 302, IPC, is wholly justified on the basis of the credible and unimpeachable evidence on record. Consequently, this appeal fails. 22. In the result, this appeal is hereby dismissed. Accused Chanda s/o Rewad Mina r/o Neemla PS Jamva Ramgarh District Jaipur, has been released on bail by this court. He is not present today in the court. The bail bonds are cancelled. Consequently, this appeal fails. 22. In the result, this appeal is hereby dismissed. Accused Chanda s/o Rewad Mina r/o Neemla PS Jamva Ramgarh District Jaipur, has been released on bail by this court. He is not present today in the court. The bail bonds are cancelled. The Sessions Judge, Jaipur District Jaipur, would now issue warrant of arrest of the accused Chanda immediately in Sessions Case No. 174/74, and after the accused is arrested, the accused be sent to the Jail for undergoing the sentence for life imprisonment passed by the trial court and confirmed by this Court, in this appeal.Appeal dismissed. *******