JUDGMENT : K.P. Mohapatra, J. - The Appellant has challenged the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jeypore, convicting him for offences under Sections 376 and 302 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. The prosecution case, as disclosed by the F.I.R. (Ext. 7) lodged at Gudari Police Station in Koraput district on 25-12-1983 and the evidence on record was that Dalkhau Khora (P.W. 4) and his wife were residents of village Gordangpeta. In order to earn his livelihood, he used to go to village Borchiguda for grazing cattle. On 24-12-1983 in the morning, P.W. 4 and his wife together left for Borchiguda and spent the night in that village. Their daughter Tulabati remained alone in the house in village Gordangpeta. The Appellant was living at Borchiguda for about a month. In the night of 24-12-1983, he came to Gordangpeta, raped and killed Tulabati, a minor girl aged between 10 and 12 years and forcibly took away her nose ring. He also killed two fowls inside the house. Early in the morning, the informant Gopi Gogranga (P.W. 1) got up hearing the crow of the fowls, gathered other villagers and caught hold of the Appellant who on being questioned confessed his guilt. He went to Borchiguda and informed P.W. 4 about the fact. The Investigating Officers (P.Ws. 10 and 11) commenced investigation and sent the dead body of the deceased for post mortem examination. The Appellant could not be arrested immediately as he had absconded. After close of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted. 3. The defence of the Appellant was complete denial of commission of the offence. 4. P.W. 7 was the Medical Officer of Sub-Divisional Hospital, Gunupur. He conducted the post-mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased on 30-12-1983 and found the following external injuries: (1) The hymen showed small ruptures on the posterior wall; (2) Small bruises were present in the supra sternal notch; (3) The neck was swollen; and (4) The tongue was bitten between the teeth. On dissection, he found that the muscles of the neck near the supra sternal notch and on the right side of the chest were bruised in an area of 2 c.m. x 5 c.m On account of decomposition of the body, no other injuries could be noticed. He opined that possibility of sexual intercourse just before death could not be ruled out. He opined that possibility of sexual intercourse just before death could not be ruled out. The injuries were ante-mortem in nature. Death was on account of asphyxia because of pressure applied on the chest and the neck and was homicidal in nature. (vide post-mortem report-Ext. 3). On further query, he opined in Ext. 4/A that the deceased did not attain puberty. In cross-examination, he admitted that he could not definitely say if there was rape prior to death. Considering the evidence of the Medical Officer (P.W. 7), the learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the deceased, who had not attained puberty, had been subjected to sexual intercourse and death was homicidal in nature. Although Miss Sanju Panda, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, did not dispute the nature of the death on account of homicide, she made a faint attempt to show that the deceased was not subjected to rape in view of indefiniteness of the evidence of the Medical Officer. It is, however, found from the post-mortem report and the evidence of the Medical Officer that the hymen of the deceased was ruptured. P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 who saw the dead body immediately after detection of the crime, stated that the deceased was lying naked on a rope cot with her legs separated, blood and white substance looking like semen had come out from the vagina and the bed cloth was stained with blood. The evidence of all these witnesses if considered along with the evidence and opinion of the Medical Officer will unerringly indicate that the deceased, a minor girl aged about 11 years, was subjected to rape before she was done to death. 5. Miss Panda, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, urged that there was no eye witness to the rape and murder of the deceased, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is discrepant and unreliable and the extrajudicial confession of the Appellant was not only on account of threat, but also made in the presence of the Gramarakhi and so inadmissible in evidence. Mr. Das, learned Addition of Standing Counsel, on the other hand, urged that the occurrence took place in a remote and undeveloped jungle area. The material prosecution witnesses belonged to the scheduled tribe. They are illiterate and cannot be considered to be intelligent people as in the plains. Mr. Das, learned Addition of Standing Counsel, on the other hand, urged that the occurrence took place in a remote and undeveloped jungle area. The material prosecution witnesses belonged to the scheduled tribe. They are illiterate and cannot be considered to be intelligent people as in the plains. They deposed before the Court truthfully according to their understanding and capacity and so there is nothing to disbelieve their testimony. In view of the contentions raised, it is necessary to consider the prosecution evidence in order to find out whether the case of rape and murder was brought home to the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt. 6. P.W. 1 stated that his house was at a distance of 10 to 15 cubits from that of the deceased and' her father (P.W. 4) intervened by an open space. In the later part of the night of occurrence while he was sleeping in his house he woke up hearing sounds of crow of cocks and came out. He woke up Gogranga Midila (P.W. 2) who was sleeping on his Pinda and both of them came near the house of the deceased. They found that the front door of the deceased was closed from inside but the back door was half open. They suspected that some wild animal might have entered into the house through the back door and so they woke up some others of the village, such as, Gogranga Das Majhi (P.W. 3) and few others. All of them surrounded the house of the deceased. As it was dark, they pulled out some straw from the thatch of the house and lighted it with fire, and entered into the house of the deceased. They saw that the Appellant was concealing himself inside the house and the deceased was lying dead and naked on a cot with face upwards. Both of her legs were kept apart. Blood and semen had come out from her private parts. Blood was oozing out of the nose of the deceased. Her neck was swollen and the tongue protruded outside. Some gold ornaments worn by the deceased were not on her body. He found that the Appellant was wearing a full pant the buttons of which were open. His penis was visible and was found to be stained with blood and semen. Her neck was swollen and the tongue protruded outside. Some gold ornaments worn by the deceased were not on her body. He found that the Appellant was wearing a full pant the buttons of which were open. His penis was visible and was found to be stained with blood and semen. When they asked the Appellant which was but natural, he told that he had raped the deceased and as she cried he throttled her neck. The witness saw that broken bangles and silver Paunjis of the deceased were lying on the cot. Two dead fowls were underneath it. The villagers tied the Appellant to a pillar of his house. In the morning he went to village Borchiguda to inform the parents of the deceased. Hearing the sad news, the parents and some others of that village came and again enquired from the Appellant about the occurrence who confessed that he had committed the rape and murder. The witness thereafter left for Chandrapur Out-Post along with some other villagers to report the matter. As the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police was not present, he got a report written about the occurrence and made over the same to the police constable present at the out-post who made a station diary entry. Thereafter, P.W. 1 along with the other villagers and the police constable left for Gordangpeta and arrived on Monday morning. The Appellant was handed over to the police constable who directed P.W. 1 to take the report to submit it at Gudari Police Station. P.W. 1 and some other villagers left for Gudari Police Station and arrived there on Monday night and handed over the same to a constable who was present at the police station, as both the Sub-Inspector of Police and the Assistant Sub- Inspector of Police were absent at the time. So he came back to the village and reached on Tuesday night. The police arrived there on Wednesday morning. By that time the Appellant had absconded. In cross-examination he stated that the Appellant was living at village Borchiguda which was at a distance of two miles from village Gordangpeta for about a month prior to the occurrence. He was coming to the village to sell dry fish. He was living with his wife. He denied the suggestion that there was dispute between him and the Appellant with regard to a piece of land. He was coming to the village to sell dry fish. He was living with his wife. He denied the suggestion that there was dispute between him and the Appellant with regard to a piece of land. It took 10 to 15 minutes to arrive at the house of the deceased from the time he woke up. All the villagers who had gathered entered inside the house through the back door with the burning straw bundle as the inside of the house was dark. He further admitted that the occurrence was reported to the Gramarakhi of village Bodabili which was at a distance of two miles from the village. The Gramarakhi came at about 8 a.m. on Sunday. By that time the Appellant had already been kept tied to the pillar. In the presence of the Gramarakhi the Appellant confessed that he had raped and killed the deceased by throttling her neck. The confession of the Appellant before the villagers was prior to the arrival of the Gramarakhi. It was at the time when the Appellant was concealing himself inside the house of the deceased and was caught. At that time, however, the Gramarakhi was not present. The evidence of this witness has been challenged on the ground that he did not state anything about the extra-judicial confession in the F.I.R., as well as in his statement u/s 161, Code of Criminal Procedure before the Investigating Officer. Contradictions in those statements, if any, were however neither confronted to him nor elicited from the Investigating Officer (P.W. 10). According to law) F.I.R. and statements u/s 161, Code of Criminal Procedure are not substantive evidence. So, unless attention of the witness was drawn to the statements made therein and again brought out from the Investigating Officer, they cannot legally be taken into consideration so as to discredit the testimony of the witness. The Court cannot straight away look at contradictory statements or omissions in the F.I.R. and statements recorded u/s 161, Code of Criminal Procedure for disbelieving the prosecution witnesses. The evidence of this witness who had given a full description of the incident which he had seen and experienced is so natural that it cannot be disbelieved. 7. P.W. 2 stated that it was a Saturday when he went to the house of his brother (P.W. 1) and slept on the Pinda at night, whereas, P.W. 1 slept inside the house. 7. P.W. 2 stated that it was a Saturday when he went to the house of his brother (P.W. 1) and slept on the Pinda at night, whereas, P.W. 1 slept inside the house. At about cock-crow time he heard the cocks crowing from the house of the deceased. P.W. 1 woke him up and both of them went to the house of the deceased and found that the front door was closed but the back door was half open. They called some villagers. They picked up a bundle of straw from the thatch of the house of the deceased, lighted it with fire and entered inside the house. Deceased Tulabati was lying dead with her face upwards. Her neck was swollen and the legs were kept apart. Her tongue had protruded. Blood and semen were oozing out of her private parts. The Appellant was wearing a pant but the buttons were open. His penis which was stained with semen was visible. Being asked by the villagers, the Appellant stated that he had committed rape and throttled the neck of the deceased. So, the Appellant was tied. In the morning, along with P.W. 1 he left for Borchiguda to inform the parents of the deceased. Her parents with some other villagers came and when they asked the Appellant, he also confessed before the. He accompanied P.W. 1 and others to Chandrapur Out-Post to report the matter. In cross-examination he stated that he did not know the Appellant prior to the occurrence. He did not himself hear the noise of the fowls. The Gramarakhi of village Bodabili came to the village before sunrise. In the presence of the Gramarakhi, the Appellant confessed that he had committed rape and throttled the neck of the deceased. He did not make any confession prior to that. He did not enter inside the house of the deceased and stood near the back door. Subsequently, he clarified that the Gramarakhi was not present when the Appellant made the confession in the night and the place where the deceased was lying dead was visible from the back door of the house. He did not enter inside the house of the deceased and stood near the back door. Subsequently, he clarified that the Gramarakhi was not present when the Appellant made the confession in the night and the place where the deceased was lying dead was visible from the back door of the house. The evidence of this witness substantially corroborated the evidence of P.W. 1 with regard to the main events, such as, concealment of the Appellant inside the house condition of the dead body of the deceased, condition of the Appellant himself and the confession he immediately made before the villagers soon after he was caught. 8. P.W. 3, another villager stated that he knew the Appellant. The occurrence took place on a Saturday night in the month of Pausa. Being called by P.W. 1 and some others of the village he got up. All of them went to the house of the deceased and found that the front door was closed from inside, but the back door was half open. They pulled a bundle of straw from the thatch of the house, lighted it with fire and went inside the house through the back door. They found the Appellant concealing himself near the door corner. The deceased was lying naked and dead with her face upwards on a cot. Her legs were kept apart. The tongue had protruded. Blood and semen were coming out from her private parts. Blood had also come out from her nose. Being asked, the Appellant confessed to have committed rape and killed the deceased. He was wearing a pant the buttons of which were open. His penis was visible. He was caught and tied. He guarded him. When the constable arrived at the spot, the Appellant was there being tied, but when he was handed over to the constable he escaped. In cross examination, the witness stated that the night was dark, the Appellant was caught inside the house and at that time he was trembling. He was not assaulted by the villagers. He confessed his guilt in the presence of the Choukidar after he was tied to the pillar. He denied the suggestion that the Appellant had not made the extrajudicial confession before arrival of the Choukidar. 9. He was not assaulted by the villagers. He confessed his guilt in the presence of the Choukidar after he was tied to the pillar. He denied the suggestion that the Appellant had not made the extrajudicial confession before arrival of the Choukidar. 9. P.W. 4, the father of the deceased stated that on the Saturday (day preceding the night of occurrence) he was in his house at Gordangpeta in the afternoon. The Appellant came to his house to sell dry fish. Some other persons also came there. All sat together in his Pinda and drank liquor. After finishing, all of them went away. He also left for Borchiguda with his wife and two children leaving the deceased alone in the house. The following Sunday morning, P.Ws. 1 and 2 came to Borchiguda and informed about the incident, hearing which, along with his wife he came to his house and saw that the Appellant had been tied to a pillar of the house of P.W. 1. When he asked the Appellant about the incident, the latter confessed his guilt. When he entered inside the house, he found his daughter lying dead on a cot. In cross-examination, he stated that when he arrived at his house, he found the Choukidar present. 10. P.W. 6 stated that on a Saturday on his way back from village Bodabili, he came to Gordangpeta and sat on the Pinda of P.W. 4. Some other persons along with the Appellant were also present there. After taking liquor, he went to his village along with his companions. The Appellant told that he would come later after selling the dry fish. On Sunday morning, P.Ws. 1 and 2 came to his village and informed him that the Appellant had committed the murder of daughter of P.W. 4. He came to Gordangpeta along with P.W. 4 and some others and found that the Appellant had been tied to a pillar of the house of P.W. 1. On being asked by P.W. 4, the Appellant confessed to have killed his daughter, as she raised hull a while committing rape on her. He accompanied P.Ws. 1 and 2 to Chandrapur Police Out-Post to report the matter to the police. As the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police was not there, the Constable who was present came to the spot. Thereafter, he along with P.Ws. He accompanied P.Ws. 1 and 2 to Chandrapur Police Out-Post to report the matter to the police. As the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police was not there, the Constable who was present came to the spot. Thereafter, he along with P.Ws. 1 and 2 went to Gudari Police Station to lodge the report. In cross-examination, he stated that the Choukidar was present when the Appellant confessed his guilt being asked by P.W. 4. 11. P.W. 8 was serving as a Constable at Chandrapur Police Out-Post on 25-12-1983. On receipt of a report, he came to Gordangpeta to watch the dead body of the deceased and guard the Appellant and arrived at the village in the morning of 26-12-1983. He saw the dead body of the deceased lying on a cot inside the house and found the Appellant tied. In the night of 26-12-1986 the Appellant escaped and went away. In cross-examination, he stated that some villagers were present near the Appellant when he arrived at the village. He took charge of him. The Appellant was wearing a full pant. The Choukidar was also present with him. He was awake till 12 midnight. He could not say how the Appellant escaped. P.W. 10, the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police of Gudari Police Station, stated that by the time he arrived at the spot, the Appellant had already escaped. 12. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses having not been shaken in cross-examination in any manner is entitled to full credence. All the witnesses were poor, simple and illiterate adivasis of a remote forest area in Koraput district. They had no axe to grind against the Appellant who did not belong to their tribe and was unrelated to them. They were not interested to see that the Appellant was convicted of serious charges of rape and murder. Their evidence appears to be true and proves the following facts: (1) The Appellant, for some time was living in village Borchiguda. He was going round the neighbouring villages selling dry fish. He was known to P.Ws. 1 and 4 and many others; (2) On the fateful Saturday preceding the occurrence, he came to the house of the deceased, sat on the Pinda and took liquor along with P.Ws. 4, 6 and some others; (3) Early in the morning of Sunday, he was found concealing himself inside the house of P.W. 4 behind the back door by P.Ws. 4, 6 and some others; (3) Early in the morning of Sunday, he was found concealing himself inside the house of P.W. 4 behind the back door by P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and others of the village, who further noticed that the deceased was lying naked and dead on a cot with face upwards. There were signs of the deceased having been raped and throttled. Blood and semen came out from her private parts and the bed cloth was stained with blood. Blood was also oozing out from her nose. The pant of the Appellant had not been buttoned and his penis was smeared with semen and blood; (4) Two fowls were found dead and kept under the cot. When P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and others who discovered the Appellant for the first time questioned, he made extrajudicial confession before them that he committed rape on the deceased and as she cried he throttled her; (5) Subsequently the Gramarakhi of a neighbouring village arrived and in his presence also, he made the extrajudicial confession; and (6) He managed to escape and absconded. It is true that there was no eye witness to the occurrence, and there could not be any. Yet the whole story can be stitched together piece by piece from the facts narrated above which are telling circumstances. The Appellant was seen during the day time in the village. He took advantage that the deceased was alone in the house. He managed to enter inside through the back door and committed rape. When she cried out, he silenced her by strangulation. When the cocks crowed, he killed them. With the ferocity of an animal and with calculating moves, the Appellant satisfied his lust by raping and killing a minor girl and was almost caught red handed because of the alertness of P.Ws. 1 and others of the village. Ordinarily, he was not to be found inside the house of another concealing himself at such an hour when the deceased was lying dead with tell-tale signs of rape. In accordance with normal human conduct, the witnesses who caught him asked about, his presence and before them the Appellant confessed that he committed rape and throttled the deceased. This appears to be the true and natural story of the prosecution which in our view has been proved beyond any shadow of doubt. 13. Miss. In accordance with normal human conduct, the witnesses who caught him asked about, his presence and before them the Appellant confessed that he committed rape and throttled the deceased. This appears to be the true and natural story of the prosecution which in our view has been proved beyond any shadow of doubt. 13. Miss. Panda urged that the circumstantial evidence was not strong enough to point at the Appellant as the only person to have committed the crime. In support of her contention, she has relied upon Naresh Kumar Vs. State of Maharashtra in which it was held that in a case which rests purely on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances proved should be incompatible with the innocence of the accused. The theory is quite well known. The circumstantial evidence in this case is indeed incompatible with the innocence of the Appellant. Miss Panda then urged that the extrajudicial confession is unbelievable and inadmissible in evidence, because it was made on threat and in the presence of the Gramarakhi. In support of this contention, she has relied on 1977 C.L.R. 55, Madan alias Undu Barik v. The State. It is true that according to law, a confession before a Gramarakhi who is a police officer is inadmissible in evidence. In this case, after arrival of the Gramarakhi of a neighbouring village and on query, the Appellant made an extrajudicial confession. This part of the evidence is not admissible and cannot be taken into account. But it will appear that even before the Gramarakhi had been intimated of the crime and his arrival at the place of occurrence, the Appellant when caught by P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and others early in the morning, on being asked, confessed that he had raped and throttled the deceased. This part of the extrajudicial confession which appears to be true cannot be discarded. In 1972 (Cri.) S.C.C. 827, Rahim Beg and Anr. v. State of U.P., it was held that extrajudicial confession is always a weak evidence. If it is made before a person having no previous connection with the confessing accused, such evidence should not be relied upon. In AIR 1979 S.C. 1620 , Lakhanpal v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, it was held that extrajudicial confession made by the accused to a stranger who did not disclose the fact to others cannot be relied upon. If it is made before a person having no previous connection with the confessing accused, such evidence should not be relied upon. In AIR 1979 S.C. 1620 , Lakhanpal v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, it was held that extrajudicial confession made by the accused to a stranger who did not disclose the fact to others cannot be relied upon. It is true that extrajudicial confession by itself is a weak type of evidence and an accused is not supposed to confess his crime before strangers or persons unrelated to him. But there may be cases in which extra-judicial confession may be made before persons previously known to the accused, and if the evidence of such persons appears to the Court to be true and reliable, the same can be taken into account in order to find out if the accused is guilty of the offence or not. It is not an invariable rule of law that in no case extrajudicial confession shall form the basis of conviction. In some cases, depending on facts, extrajudicial confession of an accused may be rejected as being weak and unreliable. But on facts of other cases, it may be a good piece of evidence in support of the prosecution. In this case, P.W. 1 was not a stranger to the Appellant. The Appellant was also not a stranger to the villagers of Gordangpeta, because he used to sell dry fish in the village. He was caught in a very suspicious manner at the place of occurrence and in such circumstances, it was not unlikely that he made the extrajudicial confession. The contention of Miss Panda is, therefore, untenable. 14. In the ultimate analysis, conclusion is inescapable that by circumstantial evidence and the extrajudicial confession, the prosecution has proved its case against the Appellant. The impugned judgment cannot, therefore, be disturbed. 15. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. V. Gopalaswamy, J. I agree. Appeal dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed