JUDGMENT : A. Pasayat, J. - "Mother is the name for God in the lips and hearts of little children ", said Thackeray in "Vanity Fair". Can the hands of a mother that rock the cradle, and in the words of W. S. Ross (The Hand That Rocks the Cradle), rule the world be responsible for the death of her two infant children, Kipling had described the love, the feelings of a mother in the following words : "If I were hanged on the highest hill. Mother O'mine, O'mother O'mine'. I know whose love would follow me still, Mother O'mine, O,mother O'mine". Can a mother snuff out the life of her two children ? The accusations are precisely that in the case at hand. 2. In this appeal from Jail, Pramila Dei (hereinafter referred to as the accused' calls is question legality of her conviction made Under Sections 302 and 309 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, IPC and sentences of imprisonment for life and one month's simple imprisonment respectively as awarded by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. The prosecution version is as follows : Bichitra and Laxmi, son and daughter respectively of the accused were the victims. The son aged ten months and the daughter was aged four years. Being of the suspicion that Bichitra was suffering from leprosy, Khatu Das (PW 7) father-in-law of the accused wrote to his son, husband of the accused, Duryodhan Das (PW 9), who was serving at Calcutta to come to the village and to arrange treatment of his son. Duryodhan came to his village and on 30-9-1987 took his son to Aul Public Health Centre. The son was examined by the doctor, who opined that the patch which was suspected to be due to leprosy was in fact not so. An ointment was prescribed and PW 9 was advised to apply the same on the patch. In the evening PW 9 returned home along with his son Bichitra and asked his wife as to whether any member of her parents' family was affected by leprosy. The accused denied such acrimonious suggestion, and was annoyed. In the night PW 9, the accused and their son Bichitra slept in one room, while their daughter Laxmi, Khatu and some others slept in another room. The accused denied such acrimonious suggestion, and was annoyed. In the night PW 9, the accused and their son Bichitra slept in one room, while their daughter Laxmi, Khatu and some others slept in another room. At about 2 a. m. PW 9 woke up and found his wife and son missing. So he woke up his father (PW 7) and noticed that Laxmi was not present. They mace a search for them, but could not trace them out. On the next morning at about 9 a.m., Sudhakar Behera (PW 2) and Sushena Behera (PW 5) recovered the dead body of deceased Laxmi from river Kharasrota. The dead body of Bichitra was also recovered from the said river. Both the dead bodies were brought near the village and were kept under a banian tree. After some time one Arun Kumar Das (PW 3) and one Maheswar Ojha rescued the accused, who was going to be drowned in the said river. The accused confessed before PWs 3 and 4 the she wanted to commit suicide after having committed murder of her two children. Information was lodged at the Police Station, investigation was undertaken and after completion thereof charge sheet was submitted. 4. The accused pleaded her innocence. It was her further plea that her husband -was hating her as her son was affected by leprosy and in the night of occurrence her husband assaulted her and did not provide her food. On that night her husband and the older brother of her husband (PW 1) threw the two children to the river, and thereafter dragged her and pushed her inside it. 5. The learned trial Judge formulated three points for consideration on the basis of the evidence on record. They are as follows : (i) Whether Laxmi and Bichitra died due to drowning ? (ii) Whether the accused threw both of them inside the water with intention to cause their death ? (ii) Whether the accused was attempting to commit suicide ? The learned trial Judge relied on the evidence of PWs 2 and 5 so far as recovery of dead bodies from the river is concerned. He also found that the evidence of PW 3 so far as extrajudicial confession is concerned was credible. He, however, did not believe that the confession made before PW 4 was voluntary and accordingly did not put any credence thereon. He also found that the evidence of PW 3 so far as extrajudicial confession is concerned was credible. He, however, did not believe that the confession made before PW 4 was voluntary and accordingly did not put any credence thereon. He, however, held that since there was material to show that accused was missing with the two deceased and that aspect along with the confessional statement was sufficient to prove guilt of the accused. The learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced as aforesaid on that conclusion. 6. Mrs. Pramila Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the accused has strenuously urged that there was no material to show that the accused was the author of the crime. She has attacked on PW 3's evidence in Court on the ground that the same was materially different from what was stated during investigation. According to her. in the absence of any specific material to show that the death of the two children occurred due to any act committed by her, merely on the basis of surmises the learned trial Judge should not have convicted her. The learned counsel for State on the other hand contended that the background as projected by the prosecution clearly provided a motive for commission of the crime. The very fact that the accused admitted before PW 3 to have committed the crime, and was trying to take away her own life clearly established her guilt. 7. The acceptability of the prosecution case depends on the question whether the prosecution has been able to establish its case. Motive for the crime, the evidence of PW 3, and certain circumstances provide the prop for the prosecution case. So far as motive aspect is concerned, we do not find it to be so strong that a mother would take away the life of her own children. Even accepting that Duryodhan (PW 9) had held the accused responsible for Bichitra's ailment that would not certainly provide any basis for taking away the life of the daughter. Motive is not always a relevant factor while adjudicating culpability. But when prosecution projects motive as the foundation of a crime, it has to establish" the same by credible and cogent evidence. Suspicion, however strong, or surmises, however attractive cannot be the substitute. 8. Motive is not always a relevant factor while adjudicating culpability. But when prosecution projects motive as the foundation of a crime, it has to establish" the same by credible and cogent evidence. Suspicion, however strong, or surmises, however attractive cannot be the substitute. 8. One more significant aspect which appears to have escaped the notice of the learned trial Judge is the admitted prosecution case that the daughter Laxmi was sleeping in the company of Khatu (PW 7), Khatu's wife and some others. It may have been possible, even going by suppositions, that the accused took away deceased Bichitra along with her because he was sleeping in the same room. But it has to be seen how she managed to take away Laxmi, who was sleeping in another room with four other persons, No explanation has been offered as to how PW 9 who was sleeping with accused and Bichitra could not know when they left. Prosecution has not tried to explain these vital circumstances. We are of the considered opinion that the motive aspect has not been proved by the prosecution, though the same projected as the foundation for the crime. 9. Coming to the extrajudicial confession, we find that PW 3 has stated about the same. His statement during investigation is substantially different from his evidence in Court. He has accepted that he did not state before police that the accused had confessed before him to have thrown her children out of domestic quarrel. There is another significant aspect so far as the evidence of this witness is concerned. He was examined on 3-10-1987 as we find from the records. He claimed to have accompanied the accused 1o the house of Khatu. No witness, not even PW 7 has stated that he spoke about confession made by the accused. This appears to be somewhat unusual. PW 3 was a vital witness. No explanation whatsoever has been offered for his delayed examination. In this connection plausibility of PW3's evidence needs consideration with reference to the evidence of PW 12. He has stated that when he found the accused for the first time, she was not able to properly speak. The confession if at all made at a point of time when the accused is not in a proper state of mind can be of no consequence. He has stated that when he found the accused for the first time, she was not able to properly speak. The confession if at all made at a point of time when the accused is not in a proper state of mind can be of no consequence. If a person does not know what he or she is speaking, and let us say in a state of delirium, can the statement be said to be a normal one ? The answer is an emphatic 'on'. For a confession to be legally acceptable, the mind of the declarant must be in a state of perfect equanimity. Time and again the apex Court and this Court have emphasized that vital witness should be given precedence over non-vital witnesses when statement is recorded during investigation. When' a vital witness is examined long alter examination of other witnesses, a doubt arises. It is true that delayed examination would not be a factor against the prosecution, in all Gases. But when no explanation is offored obviously the veracity is corroded. [See Ganesh Bhavan Patel and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra, and Bipin Panigrahi and six others v. State (1992) 5 OCR 474]. From the evidence of the Investigating Officer {PW 12), we find that he has mentioned about the -examination of several witnesses on 1-10-1957, but does not indicate as to why PW 3 was examined on 3-10-1987, 10. A rule of strict caution is to be invariably applied before accepting evidence of extrajudicial confession. Such a confession is not formal or routine for an accused and is against the normal human conduct. Unless good causes are shown as to why a person would voluntarily acknowledge a criminal act with the inevitable consequences of being subjected to penal actions, the Courts should carefully deal with the evidence. 1t is no doubt true that extrajudicial confession is not a weak piece of evidence, but from the very nature of the evidence being inculpatory a cautious approach is necessary. The Courts must be on the guard to scresn out cases where words are put in the mouth of the accused to give it colour of voluntary confession. The extrajudioial confession like any other evidence has to be tested in the touchstone of credibility and may form the basis of conviction solely in a given case. The Courts must be on the guard to scresn out cases where words are put in the mouth of the accused to give it colour of voluntary confession. The extrajudioial confession like any other evidence has to be tested in the touchstone of credibility and may form the basis of conviction solely in a given case. Corroboration of an extrajudiciai confession is generally sought as a matter of abundant caution though it is not the requirement of law. 11. Sections 24 to 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, deal with the admissibUHy of confession by accused persons in criminal cases. But the expression 'confession' is not defined. In the illustrated case of AIR 1939 47 (Privy Council) the expression 'confession' was described as follows : "A confession is a statement made by an accused which must either admit in terms the offence or at any rate substantially all the facts which constitute the offence." Confessions which are supposed to be the of spring of penitence and remorse, and which nevertheless are repudiated by the accused at the trial, need very Careful handling. As observed by Straight J. in R. v. Babulal ILR. 6 All. 509 (F.B) it is incredible, that the extraordinary large number of confessions which come before us in the criminal cases disposed of by this Court, either in appeal or revision, should have been voluntarily and freely made in every instance as represented, but the retraction follows almost invariably as a matter of course. We have iridicated these aspects because extrajudicial confessions have become a routine and common affair in every trial these days. Judged in the above backgrounds, evidence of PW 3 lacks credibility. 12. ln our considered opinion, the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The appeal is, therefore allowed and the conviction and sentence are set aside. The accused be set at liberty forthwith unless she is required to be in custody in connection with any other case. D.M. Patnaik, J. 13. I agree. Final Result : Allowed