BEHERA, J. ( 1 ) BOTH the appeals arising out of the same judgment and order passed by Mr. K. C. Kar, Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack, have been heard together and will be governed by this common judgment. The accused-appellant in the Criminal Appeal who is the respondent in the Government Appeal (to be described hereinafter as the 'appellant') stood charged under S. 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the 'code') with having committed the murder of Sananda Samal (to be referred to hereinafter as the 'deceased') on the 10th Feb. 1976 at Village Gopalpur in the district of Cuttack by hitting his head by means of a lathi (M. O. I. ). To bring home the charge, the prosecution had examined eleven witnesses. The appellant's plea was one of denial and false implication. He had examined one witness in his defence. Of P. Ws. 2 and 3 examined as witnesses to the occurrence, P. W. 3 did not support the case of the prosecution for which he was put leading questions under S. 154 of the Evidence Act. The prosecution had also relied on an extra-judicial confession said to have been made by the appellant before P. Ws. 1, 2, 4 and 8. Of them, P. Ws. 4 and 8 did not support the case of the prosecution in this regard. Relying on the evidence of P. W. 2 and holding on the basis of his evidence that the appellant was the assailant of the deceased and on the basis of the extra-judicial confession said to have been made by the appellant coupled with the medical evidence, the learned trial Judge has found that the appellant had killed the deceased by means of M. O. I. But in the circumstances of the case, he has held that the offence would be one of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under the second part of S. 304 of the Code. The appellant has accordingly been convicted under S. 304 Part II of the Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years. ( 2 ) THE State is in appeal against the order of acquittal in respect of the charge under S. 302 of the Code. The appellant has accordingly been convicted under S. 304 Part II of the Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years. ( 2 ) THE State is in appeal against the order of acquittal in respect of the charge under S. 302 of the Code. ( 3 ) IT has been contended on behalf of the appellant that there is no evidence of any witness identifying the appellant as the assailant of the deceased and no order of conviction can be based on the retracted extra-judicial confession said to have been made by the appellant before P. W. 1 as being the brother of the deceased, P. W. 1 is a highly interested witness and it would not be safe, reasonable and proper to accept his evidence and hold the appellant to be guilty only on the basis of an extra-judicial confession said to have been made before him. ( 4 ) IT would appear from the medical evidence that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. There is no evidence of any witness to the occurrence identifying the appellant as the assailant of the deceased. P. W. 2 has clearly stated in his evidence that he could not identify the assailant. The learned trial Judge has gone wrong in holding that his evidence would indicate that the appellant was the assailant. ( 5 ) COMING to the extra-judicial confession, it may be kept in mind that while as a proposition of law, an order of conviction can be based on an extra-judicial confession if the evidence in that regard is available from reliable and independent sources, as a rule of practice and prudence, a retracted extra-judicial confession to be acted upon, should receive some corroboration. In the instant case, P. W. 2 has not testified that it was the appellant who had admitted to have killed the deceased. Although P. Ws. 4 and 8 were said to be present when the extra-judicial confession was made by the appellant and they could corroborate the evidence of P. W. 1 in this regard, these two witnesses had not testified about it. P. W. 8 was no other person than an Assistant Consolidation Officer. There was no reason as to why these two witnesses, namely, P. Ws. P. W. 8 was no other person than an Assistant Consolidation Officer. There was no reason as to why these two witnesses, namely, P. Ws. 4 and 8, should have joined hands with the appellant to suppress the truth if, in fact, an extra-judicial confession had been made by him. Thus the court is left only with the evidence of P. W. 1 in this regard. Doubtless, his evidence is that of a highly interested witness. His evidence could be, but had not been corroborated. In such circumstances, it would be extremely unsafe and hazardous to unreservedly accept his testimony and hold that the appellant had made an extra-judicial confession admitting to have killed the deceased. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, even assuming that the appellant had made an extra-judicial confession before P. W. 1, the uncorroborated extra-judicial confession which has been retracted should not be made the foundation of an order of conviction. ( 6 ) THERE is no other evidence pointing to the guilt of the appellant. In this state of highly unsatisfactory evidence, the finding recorded by the learned trial Judge that the appellant was the assailant of the deceased cannot be sustained. ( 7 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, we, are of the view that the order of conviction is unfounded and misconceived. ( 8 ) THE Criminal Appeal succeeds and is allowed. The order of conviction passed against the appellant under S. 304 Part II of the I. P. C. and the sentence passed against him thereunder are set aside. The Government Appeal fails and is dismissed. The bail bond executed by the appellant stands discharged. ( 9 ) BEFORE parting with these appeals, we would like to keep on record some highly disquieting features while recording the statement of the appellant under S. 313 of the Cr. P. C. P. W. 2 had not testified in his evidence that the appellant had assaulted the deceased on his head by means of M. O. I. nor about the appellant admitting to have assaulted the deceased. Unfortunately, however, questions Nos. 10 and 11 and the answers were recorded as under :"q. 10. It is in the evidence of P. W. 2 that you gave a stroke with M. O. I. on the head of the deceased as a result of which the deceased fall down sustaining bleeding injuries. Unfortunately, however, questions Nos. 10 and 11 and the answers were recorded as under :"q. 10. It is in the evidence of P. W. 2 that you gave a stroke with M. O. I. on the head of the deceased as a result of which the deceased fall down sustaining bleeding injuries. What have you got to say? ans : It is false. Q. 11. It is in the evidence of P. W. 2 that being questioned by him, you replied that as the accused scolded him, you assaulted him. What have you got to say? -ans. It is false. Questions Nos. 17 and 18 and the answers thereto have been recorded thus : "q. There was mistake in the name of the deceased in your statement recorded and the said mistake was corrected. What have you got to say? a. I have nothing to say. Q. Further it appears there is mistake in noting the name of injured as Jadumani and the same is corrected by me today. What have you got to say? a. I have nothing to object. Another Adikanda had assaulted. "circumstances appearing in the evidence against an accused are to be brought to his notice. Some corrections made with regard to the names by the trial Judge are not circumstances appearing in the evidence against the accused and no such questions should have been put to the appellant. It appears that reasonable and proper care has not been taken by the trial Judge while examining the appellant under S. 313 of the Cr. P. C. Order accordingly. .