KANTA BHATNAGAR, J.—Appellant Hinda was tried for the offences under sections 302, 307, 325 and 323 I.P.C. by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirohi. Vide judgment dated December 23, 1982 he was held guilty for the charges under sections 302, 325 and 323 I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life on the first count, three years R.I. on the second count and one years R.I. on the third count with an order that all the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. Hinda felt aggrieved by his conviction and sentences and preferred this appeal through Superintendent Central Jail Jodhpur, in this Court. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case giving rise to the trial and the present appeal are that on November 1,1981 Munna resident of Krashna Gunj filed a report (Ex.P/1) written by Fateh Mohammed (P.W. 1), Mantri, Gram Sabha Krashan Gunj before Takhat Singh (P.W. 17) to the effect that Hinda had committed the murder of his wife Deeva and had caused injuries to Fateh Guru (P.W. 21), Teja (P.W. 9) and Achala. That the villagers had apprehended Hinda and taken away a Bamboo stick from his hand. Takhat Singh (P.W. 17), Head Constable went to the site and inspected the house of Hinda where Deeva was lying dead. The Inquest Report (Ex.P/6) and Panchayatnama of the dead body (Ex.P/7) were prepared. Vide memo Ex. P/8 Hinda was arrested. The dhoti which Hinda was wearing at the time being suspected of having blood stains was taken in possession. Vikram Singh (P.W. 24) Inspector, C.I.D. at the direction of Superintendent of Police Sirohi went to the site and took charge of investigation from Takhat Singh (P.W. 17). He got the postmortem examination of the dead body of Deeva conducted by Dr. Bhoor Singh (P.W. 19). The Doctor noted following injuries on the dead body:- 1. Incised wound 4" x 1/2"x muscle deep. 1 1/2 below the chin, from left side of adams apple to left side of neck cutting down the left juglar vain. Wound was horizontal in direction. It was grievous and caused by sharp weapon. 2. Incised wound 2" x 1/2" x bone deep just above the left upper lip, horizontal in direction. It was simple and caused by sharp object. 3. Incised wound 2" x 1/2" x bone deep on left parietal region, verticle in direction with fracture of left parietal bone. It was grievous and caused by sharp weapon. 2. Incised wound 2" x 1/2" x bone deep just above the left upper lip, horizontal in direction. It was simple and caused by sharp object. 3. Incised wound 2" x 1/2" x bone deep on left parietal region, verticle in direction with fracture of left parietal bone. It was grievous and caused by sharp object. 4. Incised wound 4" x 1" x 1 1/2", 5" below the left elbow joint verticle in direction with fracture of left ulna bone. It was grievous and caused by sharp weapon. 5. Bruise 1" x1/2" at middle of left upper arm with fracture of shaft of humerus bone from its middle. It was grievous and caused by a blunt object. 6. Incised wound l" x 1/2" x bone deep on back of right wrist joint. It was simple and caused by sharp weapon. It was horizontal in direction. 7. Incised wound 1/2" x 1/4" x bone deep just above the right eye brow. It was simple and caused by sharp weapon. 4. The postmortem examination report is Ex.P/30. According to the Doctor all the injuries were antemortem in nature and the death was due to shock as a result of haemorrhage on account of multiple wounds. Injuries No. 1 and 3 were held to be individually sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 5. On November 12, 1981 Dr. Bhoor Singh (P.W. 19) examined Teja and noted one bruise l"xl" on left scapular region and prepared the injury report Ex. P/24. According to the Doctor the injury was simple and caused by blunt object. On that day Dr. Bhoor Singh also examined the injuries on the person of Achla son of Daula and noted following injuries:- 1. Bruise 1" x 1", 3 1/2" above the left wrist joint. 2. Bruise 2\" x 1" on back of left shoulder joint. 3. Bruise 2\" x 1" on left scapular region. 4. Bruise 2 1/2" x 1" on right scapular region. 6. The Doctor prepared the injury report Ex.P/25 and opined that all the injuries were simple and caused by blunt object. 7 On the same day Dr. D.K. Baramera (P.W. 13) Medical Jurist, General Hospital, Sirohi examined Fateh Guru and noted following injuries on his person. 1. Lacerated wound 3 x .5 x .5 cm. on the left side of occipeto-parietal region 2 cm. 7 On the same day Dr. D.K. Baramera (P.W. 13) Medical Jurist, General Hospital, Sirohi examined Fateh Guru and noted following injuries on his person. 1. Lacerated wound 3 x .5 x .5 cm. on the left side of occipeto-parietal region 2 cm. from median plane. 2. Contusion with swelling, 6x1.5 cm. on the left infra spinetous region of scapula. 3 Contusion with swelling 4 x 1 cm. on the left maxillary eminence. 4 Contusion with swelling 8 x 1 cm. on the left side of neck extending from just below and anterior to ear upto median plane posteriorly. 8 According to the Doctor all the injuries were caused by blunt object. Iniuries No. 2 to 4 were simple in nature. On x-ray of fracture of skull bone of Fateh Guru was detected. Injury No. 1 was held to be grievous. 9 Appellant Hinda furnished information to Vikram Singh (P.W. 24), Inspector for getting recovered sword from his house and in pursuance of that insformation on November 3, 1981 the S.H.O. recovered the sword Art. 12 and its piece Art. 11 from his house vide memo Ex. P/9. November 3, 1981 Babu Khan produced the lathi article 10 which was taken in possession vide memo Ex P/26. The blood on clothes of the deceased and dhoti of the accused was found to be of human blood by the Serologist. 10 Upon completion of necessary investigation charge-sheet against the appellant was filed in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi. The learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sirohi The learned Additional Sessions Judge charge-sheeted the appellant and recorded his plea. He denied the indictments and claimed to be tried. In order to substantiate its case prosecution examined 24 witnesses in all. In his statement under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the appellant denied the alienations levelled against him and stated that he was not at his house that night The learned Judge placed reliance on the prosecution witnesses and passed the judgment under appeal. As the appellant was unrepresented Mr. A.K. Acharya was appointed Amicus Curiae to plead on his behalf. 11. We heard Mr. A.K. Acharya, learned Amicus Curiae and Mr. H.R. Panwar, learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 12. As the appellant was unrepresented Mr. A.K. Acharya was appointed Amicus Curiae to plead on his behalf. 11. We heard Mr. A.K. Acharya, learned Amicus Curiae and Mr. H.R. Panwar, learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 12. Learned Amicus Curiae strenuously contended that regarding the murder of Deeva there is not an iota of evidence because there is no eye witness to the occurrence and the recovery of sword does not connect the appellant with the commission of the crime for the reason that the recovery at the instance of the accused is unbelievable. About the blood stain on dhoti the argument of the learned Amicus Curiae is that the appellant was apprahended when he is said to have given a beating to Achla after causing the injuries to Fateh Guru and as such it cannot be said that the blood stain, even if any, was that of the blood of Deeva. Regarding the extra-judicial confession, the argument is that the witnesses to the extra-judicial confession have given inconsistent version about the words uttered by the appellant and regarding the weapon of offence. 13. The learned Public Prosecutor controverted these submissions and submitted that the extra-judicial confession before the villagers is a strong circumstance against the appellant and on that circumstance alone, conviction can be sustained. 14. At the very out set it may be observed that though the prosecution has produced three ladies viz. Laxmi (P.W. 2) Kalu (P.W. 3) and Shanti (P.W. 4) to substantiate the prosecution case that Hinda gave a beating to his wife but none of them had supported the prosecution case Laxmi (P.W. 2) has stated that she was ill on the day and did not even go out. Kalu (P.W. ?) daughter of Laxmi has stated that she had not seen Hinda giving a beating to his wife. Shanti (P.W. 4) has stated that Kalu told her that Hindas wife was lying dead and when she went to the house of Hinda, he was not there. 15. The prosecution case is that after committing the murder of his wife Hinda went to the bada of Teja (P.W. 9) where Fateh Guru was taking air for the tube of his motor-cycle. Hinda gave a lathi blow on the head of Fateh Guru and when Teja went to his rescue, Hinda caused injuries to him also. The lathi got broken. Hinda gave a lathi blow on the head of Fateh Guru and when Teja went to his rescue, Hinda caused injuries to him also. The lathi got broken. The broken pieces of lathi (Ex. 7 and 8) were left there. Hinda is then said to have gone out side the school where Achla (P.W. 8) son of Daula was passing on the road while going to ease himself. Hinda inflicted three or four blows with Bamboo stick on the back of Achla. Achla caught hold of Hinda. Babu Khan who was present there snatched the lathi from his hand. Hanspuri and Jumma Khan also reached there and they all apprehended Hinda. Fateh Mohd. (P.W. 1). Member and Secretary of the Society was called. It is alleged that in the presence of Hans Puri (P.W. 22). Ismail Khan (P.W. 12) Jumma, Ikbal, Isslammu Din, Hinda confessed that he had murdered his wife. 16. So far as dhoti is concerned, suffice it to say that Achla, Fatehguru and Teja are said to have been beaten by the appellant and it cannot be said with the certainty that the blood stain on the dhoti was of the blood of Deeva. There is force in the contention of the learned Amicus Curiae that in case Hinda would have inflicted sword blows on his wife then on account of profouse bleeding dhoti and other clothes of the appellant must have been drenched with the blood which is not the case here. 17. The recovery of the sword is said to have been made in pursuance of the information furnished by the appellant. The witnesses to the extra-judicial confession have given a different version regarding the sword. Fateh Mohd. (P.W. 1) has stated that the appellant on being interrogated stated that he had thrown the sword inside the house. Hans Puri (P.W. 22) stated that he did not tell where the sword was. The sword is said to have been recovered from the slab inside the house on November 3, 1981. The accused was arrested on that very day. He did not furnish any information to A.S.I. Takhat Singh (P.W. 17) and the prosecution case is that on November 2, 1981 he furnished information to; Vikram Singh and on the next day, the pieces of the sword were recovered. The accused was arrested on that very day. He did not furnish any information to A.S.I. Takhat Singh (P.W. 17) and the prosecution case is that on November 2, 1981 he furnished information to; Vikram Singh and on the next day, the pieces of the sword were recovered. Takhat Singh (P.W. 17) and Vikram Singh (P.W. 24) had inspected the site i.e. the house where dead body of Deeva was lying. If the pieces of sword were there on the slab, they would not have been missed the sight of the police personnel, specially when, as alleged by the prosecution, in the F.I.R. it had been mentioned that the sword was there inside the house. Fateh Mohd. (P.W. 1) who got the F.I.R. scribed from Ismail has in his examination-in-chief stated that he had seen the broken pieces of the sword in the pocket of the accused. If that was so then recovery of the sword and its pieces from the house on third day of the occurrence cannot be said to be at the instance of the appellant who had already been arrested on November 1, 1981. Apart from it the origin of the stains of the blood on the two pieces of the sword could not be determined by the Serologist. We are therefore, left with the circumstances of extra-judicial confession only against the appellant. 18. The prosecution case is that when Achla caught hold of Hinda, Babu Khan snatched the Bamboo-stick from his hand and he was detained there. Beena (P.W. 5) has stated that Ismail Khan (P.W. 12), Fateh Mohammed (P.W. 1), Babu Khan etc. had tied the appellant. This shows that the appellant was not a free person at the time. Fateh Mohd. being the Member and Secretary of Gram Sabha, Krishan Gunj was a person in authority in the village. All the witnesses of the extra-judicial confession are unanimous on the point that it was on the accused being asked as to why he had murdered his wife with sword he confessed his guilt. Fateh Mohd. has stated that Hinda told that as his wife used to quarrel with him he got annoyed and killed her. Islammuddin (P.W.7) stated that he told that as they were quarrelling amongst themselves he killed her. Babu Khan (P.W. 20) stated that Hinda told that as his wife was not obeying him, he killed her. Fateh Mohd. has stated that Hinda told that as his wife used to quarrel with him he got annoyed and killed her. Islammuddin (P.W.7) stated that he told that as they were quarrelling amongst themselves he killed her. Babu Khan (P.W. 20) stated that Hinda told that as his wife was not obeying him, he killed her. Hanspuri (PW 22) stated that Hinda totd that there was quarrel between him and his wife, so he killed him. Ikbal Khan (P.W. 12) stated that Hinda told that as there was hot altercation between him and his wife so he killed him. 19. The learned Amicus Curiae emphatically argued that if the accused confessed only once before all the witnesses the different version regarding the cause of the murder is sufficient to discard the testimony of these witnesses. It has also been argued by the learned Amicus Curiae and in our opinion rightly so that the confession even if any could not be said to be voluntarily, as it was at the instance of the persons who had assembled there and also in a situation when they had tied Hinda after his causing injury to Achla. 20. As evident from the statement of Fateh Mohd. (P.W. 1 ) Hinda was asked as to why he had killed his wife with sword. This shows that the villagers had taken it for granted that Hinda had killed his wife by sword and had only asked him the reason for it. 21. Extra-judicial confession in order to be made the basis of the conviction must be not before the person in authority and with a threat or promise. The exact words uttered by the accused should be reproduced by the witnesses. In the case on hand, the witnesses have given different version regarding the sword and the cause of murder. In the absence of any corroboration on the extra-judicial confession of this nature conviction of the appellant for the charge of murder cannot be sustained. We do not mean to say that in no case uncorroborated extra-judicial confession may be made the basis of conviction. In case the extra-judicial confession is before the persons not in authority, it is out of free will and is without threat or promise it can be pressed into service in convicting the culprit even if there is no corroborative piece of evidence. In case the extra-judicial confession is before the persons not in authority, it is out of free will and is without threat or promise it can be pressed into service in convicting the culprit even if there is no corroborative piece of evidence. In the present case apart from the varied depositions of the witnesses regarding the words used by the accused the fact that the appellant was at the time tied by the villagers, we find substance in the submission of the learned Amicus Curiae that the villagers might have threatened the appellant. 22. A very important factor in the case is that the appellant is said to have given a beating to Fateh Guru without any reason. It does not appear to be a natural version and we agree with the learned Amicus Curiae that prosecution has not brought true facts on the record. There might have been some quarrel or hot altercation between Fateh Guru and the appellant so as to lead the latter to cause injuries to Fateh Guru. It is also strange that when the lathi was broken and pieces of lathi Ex. 7 and 8 are said to have been thrown by the appellant from where did he get Bomboo stick covered by rubber tube (Ex.12) by which he caused injury to Achla and which was snatched by Babu Khan. However, in view of the statement of Fateh Guru (P.W.21), Teja (P.W.9), Achla (P.W. 6) and Babu Khan (P.W. 20) supported by the medical evidence by Dr. Bhoor Singh (P.W. 19), there is no way out but to agree with the finding of the learned trial Judge that the charges under sections 325 and 323 I.P.C. are proved against the appellant and the conviction of the appellant for those charges is justified. 23. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant under section 302 I.P.C. are set aside and he is acquitted of that charge. His conviction for the charges under sections 325 and 323 I.P.C. and sentences awarded for those charges are upheld. The appellant is in custody since November 1, 1981 and has already suffered the sentences awarded to him under sections 325 and 323 I.P.C. He shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.