J. M. MAHAPATRA, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant has challenged the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Keonjhar convicting him under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case in short is that in the evening of 7-1-1984 the appellant committed murder of his elder brother (referred to as deceased) and infant nephew by means of an axe. He also severely injured another nephew aged about five years who subsequently succumbed to the injuries. According to the prosecution, the decease used the threaten the appellants to liquidate him along with his family and so as a retaliatory measure the appellant committed murders. The father of the appellant who is first came to know of the murders and informed villagers who came to the place of occurrence and found the dead bodies. When they questioned the appellant as to why he committed the murders, the appellant is said to have made extra judicial confession before them that he had committed the murders. At the instance of the villagers, P. W. 1 lodged First Information Report at Champua Police Station. The Investigating Officer, immediately commenced investigation and after close thereof submitted charge sheet against the accused. ( 3 ) THE defence plea during trial was that the deceased and his wife used to quarrel. On Saturday the deceased quarreled with her but he came and slept with his father. On the succeeding Sunday morning his father found that the deceased and his two sons had been assaulted to death and the deceaseds wife was not at home. In order to lodge a report at the Police Station he came but was arrested. In short he denied his complicity with the murders. ( 4 ) IT will appear from the evidence of P. Ws. 6, the medical officer and the post-mortem reports, Exts. 20. 21 and 22 that the death of the deceased persons was homicidal in. character. This fact was not disputed. In short he denied his complicity with the murders. ( 4 ) IT will appear from the evidence of P. Ws. 6, the medical officer and the post-mortem reports, Exts. 20. 21 and 22 that the death of the deceased persons was homicidal in. character. This fact was not disputed. ( 5 ) THE learned Sessions Judge took into consideration the following facts so as to record the order of conviction and sentence: (i) Evidence of extra Judicial confession; (ii) Surrender of the appellant at the Police Station along with the axe detached from its hands; (iii) Discovery of the handle from inside an Amari bush, at a distance of 21/2 K. M. from the village on information given by the appellant while in police custody; and (iv) Finding of human blood on some of the seized articles although the blood group could not be ascertained. Out of these facts, the most important is the evidence of extra judicial confession, because if this part of the prosecution evidence is disbelieved the case will not stand on the basis of the other facts which are of very weak character. Therefore, it is necessary to discuss the evidence of extra judicial confession. ( 6 ) THE settled position of law is that conviction can be based solely on the evidence of extra judicial confession if it is found to be voluntary and beyond reproach. Nevertheless, generally speaking the evidence of extra judicial confession is of a weak character. In this case, there are only two witnesses namely, P. Ws. 1 and 2 both being co-villagers of the appellant have stated about the extra judicial confession, although a host of other persons are said to have been present when the statements have made by the witnesses. In order to provide corroboration they were not examined though available. P. W. 1, a cousin of the appellant stated in his chief examination that after hearing of the murders, along with the villager, the proceeded towards the house of the appellant. They found the appellant present in his house. When they asked as to why he had killed his brother Dumbi and a son, the appellant replied that as the deceased was threatening to assault him and his children, he had killed Dumbi and one son and injured another. They found the appellant present in his house. When they asked as to why he had killed his brother Dumbi and a son, the appellant replied that as the deceased was threatening to assault him and his children, he had killed Dumbi and one son and injured another. In cross-examination he stated that while the villagers were proceeding towards the house of the deceased, on the way near the house of the appellant, they found him standing and asked about the occurrence. The witness has himself contradicted his own version stated in the chief examination by stating a different place where the appellant made the extra judicial confession before the villagers. P. W. 2 stated that when he heard about the murders he came in the house of the deceased along with other villagers. Near that place he found the appellant coming with a lathi. He asked the appellant as to why he had killed his brother and son to which the appellant replied that the deceased was always plucking away beans and used to threaten him to kill and, therefore, he killed him and his son and injured the other son. The evidence of these witnesses shows that the extra judicial confession was made at different places and one of the reasons why the appellant took the extreme step was also with regard to plucking away beans which P. W. 1 did not refer. A confession should always he voluntary in the sense that the person making the confession will approach others and speak out from his heart that he had committed a crime. But in this case it is found from the evidence of P. Ws. I and 2 that both of them first questioned as to why the appellant killed his brother and the nephew and injured another to which the appellant replied by saying that he committed murders as a retailatory measure. In consideration of the nature of the evidence and lack of corroboration we are unable to accept that the extra judicial confession was at all made or if it was made it was of voluntary character. When we disbelieve the evidence of extra judicial confession, the other facts stated above cannot support a conviction in a heanous offence of murder. In our view the true story about the murders has not been brought out by the prosecution. It is peculiar to note from. When we disbelieve the evidence of extra judicial confession, the other facts stated above cannot support a conviction in a heanous offence of murder. In our view the true story about the murders has not been brought out by the prosecution. It is peculiar to note from. the evidence of both P. Ws. 1 and 2 that the wife of the deceased was not to be found just after the murders had been detected. About this, P. W. 2 stated that she was found concealed. The Investigating Officer, P. W. 5 has revealed in his evidence that the wife of the deceased was staying in Chaibasa and although she was examined, she was not cited as a witness. The absence or concealment of the wife of the deceased appears mysterious. In the peculiar context and facts of the case, if she was in the house when the murders were committed, she was in a position to say who was the culprit. May be she herself was the culprit or somebody else, but that part of the story has not been revealed by making a thorough investigation into the case. For that reason, the appellant without sufficient evidence cannot suffer the agony of conviction and life sentence. ( 7 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, we are unable to sustain the impugned judgment and order of conviction. Accordingly we find that the prosecution was unable to prove the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant who is not guilty and is acquitted. He be set at liberty forthwith. ( 8 ) THE appeal is allowed. Appeal allowed.