ARORA, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment dated March 27,1984, passed by the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, by which the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused- appellant for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. 2. Accused Amra Ram was tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, for committing the murder of his wife Mst. Barju in his Dhani, which is situated in the Kankar of village Matora, in the intervening night between January 2 and 3, 1983. 3. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded in the First Information Report, which was lodged by PW 3 Manphoola Ram on January 3, 1983, at Police Station, Osia, is to the effect that on January 2, 1983, he had gone to village Matoda to the house of Ram Lal. Mst. Chhoti the mother-in-law of accused Amra Ram was, also, there at the house of Ram Lal. He took his meals at the house of Ram Lal and when he was returning to his own Dhani, Mst. Chhoti asked him that she will accompany him upto the Dhani of Mst. Barju. He along with Mst. Chhoti reached the house of Amra Ram at about 11.00/12.00 p.m. in the night and when they reached there, they heard the cries MAARE RE MAARE RE. They entered in the house of accused Amra Ram and in the light of a Chimni, they saw that accused Amra Ram was sitting on the chest of Mst. Barju and was throttling her. Mst. Chhoti, also, came there and rescued Mst. Barju, but Mst. Barju died sometime thereafter and accused Amra Ram ran away. In the night, they remained sitting by the side of the dead-body of Mst. Barju and in the morning, Bhakha Ram and Khinya Ram were called by Mst. Chhoti and Manphoola Ram went to lodge the report of the incident. On the basis of this information, a case under Section 302 I.P.C. was registered against the accused at Police Station, Osia, and the police, after necessary investigation, presented the challan and the accused was tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. 4. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined ten witnesses. PW 1 Mst. Chhoti and PW 3 Manphoola Ram are the two eye-witnesses of the occurrence. PW 2 Amlu Ram is the brother-in-law of Mst. Chhoti, who went with Mst. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined ten witnesses. PW 1 Mst. Chhoti and PW 3 Manphoola Ram are the two eye-witnesses of the occurrence. PW 2 Amlu Ram is the brother-in-law of Mst. Chhoti, who went with Mst. Chhoti from his village to village Matoda at the residence of Ram Lal, and helped him in reaping the harvest. PW 4 Khinya Ram and PW 5 Gulaba Ram are the two neighbours, who are the Motbir witnesses to the recoveries. PW 7 Ratan Lal is the Police Constable, who took the sealed packets for F.S.L. examination to the Stale Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur. PW 8 is Mohan Lal Sarpanch, who is a Motbir witness to the recoveries of Ghagra and a stick. PW 9 Dr. Vijay Kumar was the Medical Officer posted at Osia, who conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Mst. Barju on January 4, 1983. PW 10 Samundra Singh is the Station House Officer, who on the relevant date, was posted at Police Station, Osia, recorded the First Information Report, conducted the investigation and presented the challan. Out of these ten witnesses, PW 3 Manphoola Ram, PW 4 Khinya Ram, PW 5 Gulaba Ram and PW 6 Ratan Lal did not support the prosecution case during the trial and they were declared hostile. The accused put the defence of alibi and produced DW 1 Bheema Ram. According to the defence version, the accused Amra Ram was not in the village on the fateful night and had gone to village Bap for labour purposes. 5. The case of the prosecution, therefore, rests upon the solitary evidence of PW 1 Mst. Chhoti Devi the eye-witness of the occurrence which is sought to be corroborated by the evidence of PW 2 Amlu Ram, PW 8 Mohan Lal Sarpanch and PW 9 Dr. Vijay Kumar. According to the statement of PW 1 Mst. Chhoti, she had gone alongwith her brother-in-law Amlu Ram (PW 2) on Wednesday of Migsar Sudi 14 (corresponding to December 29, 1982) and gave cloth like Odna, Kanchali, Kurti and Chappals to her daughter Mst. Barju, who was married to accused Amra Ram and was living in village Matoda. In the night of Wednesday, she stayed with her sister-in-law, namely, Mst. Manohari, who was married to Ram Lal Bishnoi. Barju, who was married to accused Amra Ram and was living in village Matoda. In the night of Wednesday, she stayed with her sister-in-law, namely, Mst. Manohari, who was married to Ram Lal Bishnoi. Next day, i.e., on December 30, 1982, she, alongwith her brother-in-law Amlu Ram (PW 2), went to see Barju and handed over the clothes and Chappals to her, which she demanded from her mother in the fair of Srinathji. At that time she noticed that her daughter Mst. Barju had nothing even to eat. 6. On the next day, i.e., on Friday, she again went to the house of her brother-in-law (Nandoi) Ram Lal Bishnoi and stayed there for two days, i.e., on Friday and Saturday (corresponding to December 31, 1982 and January 1,1983). On January 1,1983, i.e., on Saturday, her daughter Mst. Barju came to see her in the Dhani of Ram Lal Bishnoi and informed her that her husband has not brought anything for eating and even there is no water in the house. In the evening, Mangla Rams daughter, with whom accused Amra Ram used to work, came there and informed her that Amra Ram has brought Bajri and water in the house, upon which she asked her daughter to go back to her house. At about 4.00 p.m., Mst. Barju went to her house. Thereafter her son-in-law (accused Amra Ram) came there and informed her that he had already brought water and Bajri. 7. Thereafter she requested her son-in-law Amra Ram to help her in the repairing of her huts, upon which Amra Ram told her that he would accompany her and help her in repairing the huts. The accused thereafter went to his house. Sometime thereafter, Manphoola Ram came there, who was searching for his camel. He stayed there for about two hours, took his meals and when he was going to his village, she requested him to leave her to the house of Amra Ram as she had an idea to spend the night with her daughter and in the morning, she alongwith her son-in-law Amra Ram intended to go to her village. In the night, when she, alongwith Manphoola Ram, reached near the Dhani of accused Amra Ram, they heard the cries MAARE RE MAARE RE and when she entered inside the Dhani of Barju, she saw Amra Ram silting on the chest of Mst. In the night, when she, alongwith Manphoola Ram, reached near the Dhani of accused Amra Ram, they heard the cries MAARE RE MAARE RE and when she entered inside the Dhani of Barju, she saw Amra Ram silting on the chest of Mst. Barju and was throttling her. Mst. Barju, at that lime, was lying on the ground. Mst. Chhoti and Manphoola Ram rescued Mst. Barju from accused Amra Ram. Amra Ram thereafter went out side the house, Mst. Barju died sometime thereafter. They stay in the hut in the night and in the next day morning. Manphoola Ram went to lodge the report at the Police Station and she went to the Dhani of Ram Lal and informed him that Mst. Barju has been murdered by accused Amra Ram and as such he should accompany her. Thereafter Amlu Ram and Ram Lal accompanied her Bhakra and Khinya Ram were, also, called. The police came there, prepared the site plan etc., recovered the dead-body and conducted the investigation. A lengthy cross-examination has been conducted with this witness. 8. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that this witness as well as PW 2 Amlu Ram have specifically stated that it was in the evening of Saturday (corresponding to January 1, 1983) that this witness went to the house of deceased Mst. Barju in the night at about 11.00 p.m. and saw the accused sitting on the chest of Barju and throttling her. According to this witness, the incident, therefore, took place in the night intervening Saturday and Sunday (corresponding to January 1 and 2, 1983) while actually the incident had taken place in the intervening night between January 2 and 3, 1983. However, in the statement of a rustic villager who does not have the exactness of time and date, some minor discrepancy may arise, but this witness has given the narration from the day she reached village Matoda and according to this witness, on Migsar Sudi 14 (Wednesday) corresponding to December 29, 1982) she went to village Matoda and on account of Wednesday, she stayed at Ram Lal Bishnois house and did not go to the house of her daughter Mst. Barju as it was Wednesday. 9. On Thursday, she went to the house of her daughter Mst. Barju as it was Wednesday. 9. On Thursday, she went to the house of her daughter Mst. Barju and stayed with her and came back to the house of Ram Lal on Friday and stayed with her sister-in-law on Friday and Saturday and in the evening of Saturday, i.e., on January 1, 1983, Mst. Barju came to her and thereafter Mangla Ram as well as the accused Antra Ram came to see her, with whom she had a talk to get her huts repaired and in the evening Manphoola Ram came there, who came there in search of his camel and in the night of Saturdays, she went with Manphoola Ram, to the Dhani of accused Amra Ram, Therefore, it is not the case of the prosecution that on account of some misunderstanding she has given the dates regarding the date and time of incident. She has specifically stated that the incident took place on Saturday and Sundays intervening night, which corresponds to January 1, 1983. 10. Moreover, Mst. Barju came to see her mother in the evening and if she had any idea to go to the Dhani of accused Amra Ram to stay with her daughter in the night then she would have gone with her to her house amd thereafter in the evening of Saturday, when Amra Ram himself came to see her and she had a talk with him regarding the repairing of the huts, to which he replied that he would accompany her to the village and will repair the huts and if she had an idea to stay with her daughter in the night and to go to her village then she could have accompanied him. There was no occasion to go with Manphoola Ram (PW 3) in the night at about 11.00 p.m. to the Dhani of accused Amra Ram. In the month of February, going of this witness to the Dhani of accused Amra Ram at 11.00 p.m. to stay with her daughter and to go to her own village in the morning, does not appear to be natural. If she would have gone there and seen the occurrence then the normal consequence would have been that they must have taken Barju for medical treatment to the nearest doctor or to Osia as according to this witness herself, Mst. Barju, when they reached there, was not dead and died sometime thereafter. If she would have gone there and seen the occurrence then the normal consequence would have been that they must have taken Barju for medical treatment to the nearest doctor or to Osia as according to this witness herself, Mst. Barju, when they reached there, was not dead and died sometime thereafter. Staying and sitting by the side of Mst. Barju throughout the night and not taking any step to provide her medical aid or to report the matter to the police, create a doubt regarding the presence of this witness, at the time of the incident. 11. It appears that she might have reached in the Dhani of accused Amra Ram sometime after the incident in the morning and saw the deadbody of Mst. Barju and thereafter got collected all the persons and got the F.I.R. lodged through Manphoola Ram. We are, therefore, of the opinion that this witness is not a reliable witness, who could have seen the occurrence and the accused-appellant cannot be convicted on the basis of the statement of this witness PW 1 Mst. Chhoti. 12. There remains thereafter the statement of PW 2 Amlu Ram, the brother-in-law of PW 1 Mst. Chhoti, who accompanied her from his village to village Matoda in order to help Manphoola Ram, his brother-in-law, in reaping the harvest. This witness has not seen the occurrence and, therefore, the evidence of this witness is of no consequence. 13. Then comes the evidence regarding the motive for murdering Mst. Barju by her husband. No witness, produced by the prosecution before the Court, has given any motive. The evidence regarding the motive, i.e., the illicit relations of Mst. Barju with Jodha Ram, came only in the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. and in the First Information Report lodged by Manphoola Ram, but neither the F.I.R. nor the statement under Section 161 Cr. P.C. is the substantive piece of evidence and no conviction can be based merely on the averments made in the F.I.R. or in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. 14. The prosecution has, also, placed reliance over certain recoveries, namely, the recoveries of Lathi (stick) and Ghagra at the instance and on the information given by the accused. On the Ghagra, the name of Jodha Ram, was scribed. P.C. 14. The prosecution has, also, placed reliance over certain recoveries, namely, the recoveries of Lathi (stick) and Ghagra at the instance and on the information given by the accused. On the Ghagra, the name of Jodha Ram, was scribed. The recovery of Lathi and Ghagra is of no consequence because the Lathi was not the weapon of the offence and the death of Mst. Barju was the result of asphyxia due to throttling. So far as the Ghagra is concerned, it is of no avail. So far as the recovery of the clothes from the person of the accused, which according to the prosecution were found stained with blood, is concerned, it is, also, of no consequence because the report of Serologist was not produced by the prosecution and in the absence of the report of the Serologist, it cannot be said that there were blood-stains on the clothes of the accused and if there would have been any evidence that the blood-stains found- on the clothes of the accused Amra Ram were of the same Group of Blood which was the Blood Group of deceased Mst. Barju, then a link could have been established, but in the absence of that link, the recovery of the clothes from the person of the accused-appellant is, also, of no help to the prosecution. 15. The next circumstance, on which reliance has been placed by the prosecution is with respect to the extra-judicial confession alleged to be made by accused-appellant before Amlu Ram and Ram Lal Bishnoi. Ram Lal has not supported the case of the prosecution in this respect, though Amlu Ram (PW 2) has stated that the accused made extra-judicial confession before him. The evidence of extra-judicial confession is a very weak type of evidence and a person is not expected to make the confession of his guilt before a person who is not a man of his confidence and has no influence. As Amlu Ram (PW 2) was neither a man of the confidence of the accused nor was he an influential person, therefore, making the alleged extra-judicial confession before him by the accused does riot inspire confidence. 16. Thus, these circumstances, coupled with the statement of PW 1 Mst. Chhoti, on which reliance has been placed by the learned lower Court, do not connect the accused with the crime as Mst. 16. Thus, these circumstances, coupled with the statement of PW 1 Mst. Chhoti, on which reliance has been placed by the learned lower Court, do not connect the accused with the crime as Mst. Chhoti (PW 2), in our opinion, is not a witness to the occurrence and so far as the other circumstances are concerned, they, also, do not connect the accused-appellant with the crime. 17. There remain only two circumstances against the accused- appellant, which, in our opinion, conclusively connect the accused with the crime. The accused Amra Ram and Mst. Barju were living together in the hut, where the deadbody of Mst. Barju was found died on January 3, 1983, when in the morning the witnesses collected there and the matter was reported to the police and the police recovered the deadbody and prepared the site plan etc. It was only the accused and the deceased Mst. Barju, who were living in the house and no third person was living in the hut. It has, also, come in the evidence that on the previous day, when the deadbody was recovered, the accused was present in the village and was living there. The presence of the accused in his house is, thus, most natural and the defence taken by him that he had gone to village Bap for labour work, does not inspire confidence. The presence of injuries on the person of accused-appellant, also, establishes his presence at the house at the time when the incident took place. In the statement under Section 313 Cr .P.C. question No. 15 was put to the accused-appellant regarding the presence of injuries on his person and the answer given by the accused with respect to that question is a formal denial and the answer given by him is ^xyr gS* . According to the doctor, Mst. Barju had twelve injuries on her person and this accused had four injuries on his person and the doctor has specifically opined that these injuries could have been caused due to scuffle. The injuries found on the person of this accused, in our opinion, were caused when the deceased Mst. Barju tried to rescue herself from the clutches of the accused. The injuries found on the person of this accused, in our opinion, were caused when the deceased Mst. Barju tried to rescue herself from the clutches of the accused. The two circumstances i.e., the presence of the accused in the house on the fateful night and the presence of unexplained injuries on the person of the accused, which he must have received during the scuffle, complete the chain of circumstances against the accused-appellant and, in our opinion, it was the accused, and the accused alone, who committed the murder of his wife Mst. Barju on the night intervening January 2 and 3, 1983. In our opinion, the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused-appellant beyond reasonable manner of doubt. 18. In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.