Judgment B. R. ARORA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated April 11 ,1985, passed by the Sessions Judge, Sirohi, by which the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused- appellant Sankla for the offence under section 302, I. P. C. ( 2 ) THE incident, which led to the prosecution of the appellant Sankla, took place in the night between November 16th and 17th, 1983 in village Positara (district Sirohi) when Smt. Laxmi (wife of the accused) was murdered. A written report of the incident was sent by one Bhanwarhli at Police Station, Anadra, with Mansha Ram naming the accused-appellant Sankla as the perpetrator of the crime. The case of the prosecution is that in the intervening night of November 16/17, 1983, accused Sankla murdered his wife Smt. Laxmi by, a Khunt and in the morning when an enquiry was made from him as to what had happened, he confessed his guilt before his brother P. W. 2 Rawta, P. W. 3 Laxmi W/o Rawta and P. W. 4 Raghu W/o Roopa. He, also, confessed his guilt before Bhanwar Lal - a Gram Sewak cum Secretary posted at Panchayat Samiti, Positara. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined ten witnesses. P. W. 1 Mansha Ram is the Motbir witness, who was sent by Bhanwar Lal alongwith the written report at Police Station, Anadra, and who lodged the First Information Report. He is, also, a witness to Ex. P. 2 site plan, Ex. P. 3 site inspection note, Ex. P. 4 Panchnama and the recoveries of the clothes of the deceased vide Ex. P. 5 and Ex. P. 6, by which Ghagra, Chundri and under-garments of the deceased were taken in custody. He is, also, a witness to the arrest of the accused vide Ex. P. 7 and the recovery of the clothes of the accused vide Ex. P. 8. He is, also, a witness to the recovery of Khunt vide Ex. P. 9, which was recovered at the instance and on the information supplied by the accused. He is, also, a witness to the arrest of the accused vide Ex. P. 7 and the recovery of the clothes of the accused vide Ex. P. 8. He is, also, a witness to the recovery of Khunt vide Ex. P. 9, which was recovered at the instance and on the information supplied by the accused. P. W. 2 Rawta (the brother of the accused), P. W. 3 Laxmi and P. W. 4 Raghu are the three witness before whom the extra-judicial confessions alleged to have been made by the accused witnesses have not supported the prosecution and, therefore, they have been declared P. W. 5 Laliya is the brother of the decease has been produced to prove the motive for the death of the deceased by the accused ing to this witness, the accused used to giings to his sister Smt. Laxmi, the comp which was made by the deceased before I ness and his parents sometime before the in P. W. 8 Bhanwar Lal is the Gram Sew Secretary, Panchayat Samiti, Positara, who wrote the report Ex. P-I and sent the same with] Ram (P. W. 1) at Police Station, Anadra also, a witness to the extra-judicial confession P. W. 6 Dharam Singh, P. W. 7 Padam Singh P. W. 9 Chain Singh are the three police witness P. W. 6 Dharam Singh was a constable working the Crime Branch of the office of the Superintendent of Police, Sirohi, who received eleven packets from Padam Singh and after, checking seals and finding them intact, gave them to Singh Constable to hand them over at II Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur, for examination. P. W. 7 Padam Singh is the stable who, at the relevant time, was pc Police Station, Anadra, who took the sealed packets for FSL examination first to the office Superintendent of Police, Sirohi, and then Jaipur, where he handed-over the same in the State Forensic Science Laboratory. P. W. 9 Chain Singh is the investigating officer and the II of Police Station, Anadra, who registered F. I. R. , conducted the investigation, arrested accused, prepared the site plan, site ins note and recovered certain articles and the presented the challan against the accuse 10 Dr. P. W. 9 Chain Singh is the investigating officer and the II of Police Station, Anadra, who registered F. I. R. , conducted the investigation, arrested accused, prepared the site plan, site ins note and recovered certain articles and the presented the challan against the accuse 10 Dr. Narendra Kumar Mathur is the Medical Officer posted at Primary Health Centre, Reodar who conducted the post-mortem examine the dead body of deceased, Smt. Laxmi learned Sessions Judge after trial, found appellant guilty for committing the murder wife Smt. Laxmi and sentenced the ac appellant to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. It is against this judgment dated April 11, 1985, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sirohi, convicting and sentencing the accused- appellant that the appellant has preferred this appeal. ( 3 ) THE learned Sessions Judge, while convicting and sentencing the accused relied upon the evidence of the prosecution regarding the strained relations between the deceased and the husband (accused), which supplied a motive to the accused to commit murder of his wife. The learned Sessions Judge, also, believed the evidence regarding extra judicial confession made by the accused. The learned Sessions Judge, also, believed the recovery of Khunt at the instance and on the information furnished by the accused. So far as the circumstance that the clothes of the accused were found stained with blood is concerned, that circumstance was not relied upon ned trial Court in convicting and sentencing the accused. ( 4 ) NOW, we will consider these circumstances which have been relied upon by the learned trial Court and we have to see whether the circumstances are sufficient to convict the accused for committing the murder of his wife Smt. Laxmi? ( 5 ) THE first circumstance, which has been relied upon by the learned trial Court is the strained relations between the accused and his wife Smt. Laxmi and the prosecution, on this aspect, has produced four witnesses, viz. , P. W. 2 Rawta, P. W. 3 Smt. Laxmi (W/o Rawta) and P. W. 4 Raghu and P. W. 5 Laliya. , P. W. 2 Rawta, P. W. 3 Smt. Laxmi (W/o Rawta) and P. W. 4 Raghu and P. W. 5 Laliya. So far as the evidence of P. W. 2 Rawta, P. W. 3 Smt. Laxmi and P. W. 4 Smt. Raghu is concerned, they have not supported the prosecution case on this point during the trial and, therefore, they were declared hostile. There, thus, remains the evidence of P. W. 5 Laliya the brother of the deceased. P. W. 5 Laliya has merely stated that the relations between accused Sankla and his wife Smt. Laxmi were not cordial. According to him, the accused wanted to take his wife to Abu but she refused to accompany him and, therefore, the accused used to give beating to Smt. Laxmi. He has further stated that his sister Smt. Laxmi informed him regarding this strained relation. Some strained relations might exist between the accused and, and his wife but they did not give any motive to the husband (accused) to kill his wife. Every husband would like that his wife should stay with him where he is working and for that purpose if he asked his wife to accompany to him and when his wife refused then if on that count some altercation took-place between them then that will not give any motive to the husband to murder his wife. This cannot be a sufficient motive, which could give a cause to the accused to murder his wife. The learned trial Court was, therefore, not justified in placing reliance over this strained relations as a motive to cause the murder of his wife by the accused-appellant. ( 6 ) THE next evidence, which has been relied upon by the learned trial Court, is the recovery of Khunt at the incense and on the information supplied by the accused. The learned trial Court, in the first part of the judgment, has found this evidence connecting the accused with the crime while at page number 13 of the judgment, he has specifically observed that this recovery is of no consequence because though the human blood was found on various items including the Khunt, but as the group of the blood was not known, therefore, this evidence could not be read against the accused. The learned trial Court has, thus, given two contradictory findings relations to this Khunt. The learned trial Court has, thus, given two contradictory findings relations to this Khunt. The Khunt was recovered near from the dead-body of Smt. Laxmi from an open house which has no doors. It was not found in a concealed position and a number of persons reached there and, therefore, the recovery of the Khunt, made from the house, cannot be said to be a recovery made at the instance and on the information supplied by the accused. This circumstance, also, does not connect the accused with the crime. ( 7 ) SO far as the other recoveries are concerned; they have, also not been relied upon by the learned trial Court. As per the trial Court it self, as the group of the blood on these articles was not known and; therefore, these recoveries cannot connect the accused-appellant with the crime. ( 8 ) THE last circumstance, on which reliance has been placed by the prosecution and which has been believed by the learned trial Court; is the extra-judicial confession alleged to have been made by the accused-appellant before P. W. 2 Rawta, P. W. 3 Smt. Laxmi, P. W. 4 Smt. Raghu and P. W. 6 Bhanwar Lal. P. W. 2 Rawta, P. W. 3 Smt. Laxmi and P. W. 4 Smt. Raghu have not supported the prosecution case regarding the extra-judicial confession made by the accused before them. , They were declared hostile. It is, no doubt, true that the evidence of a hostile witness does not ipso facto vanishes on his being declared hostile and that part of the evidence can be relied upon which inspires confidence. But in the present case, the evidence of these three witnesses is not sufficient to connect the accused-appellant with the crime and is not sufficient to prove the case so far as making of extra-judicial confession by the accused. ( 9 ) THUS, there remains the evidence of P. W. 6 Bhanwar Lal on the point of extra-judicial, confession being made by the accused-appellant before this witness. P. W. 6 Bhanwar Lal, who was a Gram Sewak cum Secretary, Panchayat Samiti, Positara, has stated that the wife of the accused died on 16. 11. 1983. On 17. 11. 1983, he was in formed by the Sarpanch that accused Sankla has killed his wife and he should lodge the report at the Police Station after going to the site. 11. 1983. On 17. 11. 1983, he was in formed by the Sarpanch that accused Sankla has killed his wife and he should lodge the report at the Police Station after going to the site. He went to the house of the accused who, at that time, was sitting in the house. He made enquiry from the accused, upon which the accused made a confession that he had killed his wife. He made enquiry where the deceased was lying, then the accused, took him inside the house and showed the dead- body of deceased Smt. Laxmi, who was lying on the ground near a cot. The head of the deceased, was chopped off from the body. After seeing this, he returned and informed the Sarpanch that in fact the accused has killed his wife. This witness was not of any status nor was he in friendly relations with the accused, to whom the statement admitting his guilt could be made by the accused. He was not in a position to save the accused from being involved in a police case. Moreover, this witness sent the report Ex. P. 1 to the Police Station regarding the incident through Mansha Ram (P. W. 1 ). In the written report, no reference regarding the extra-judicial confession made by the accused, was made. It was only mentioned in the report that Bhanbhi Sankla R/o Positara, has killed his wife Smt. Laxmi by chopping off her neck and, therefore action may be taken. The police, on this report, further made enquiry from Mansha Ram and in that further enquiry by the police, the reference of this extra-judicial confession finds mention. P. W. 1 Mansha Ram, in his statement before the Court, has not stated that on enquiry by the police, he narrated the fact regarding extra-judicial confession made by the accused. Even P. W. 9 Chain Singh, S. H. O. , who investigated the case, in his statement before the Court, has not stated that portion E to F in Ex. P. 1 was written on the information supplied by Mansha Ram. He has merely stated that portion E to F has been written by him. Even P. W. 9 Chain Singh, S. H. O. , who investigated the case, in his statement before the Court, has not stated that portion E to F in Ex. P. 1 was written on the information supplied by Mansha Ram. He has merely stated that portion E to F has been written by him. If any confessional statement would have been made by the accused before Bhanwar Lal (P. W. 6) or before any of the witnesses before the F. I. R. was sent to the Police Station, then this fact would have been mentioned by Bhanwar Lal in his report. The non-mentioning of this fact in the F. I. R. , sent by Bhanwar Lal through Mansha Ram and making an addition in the portion E to F in the TKariyawahi Police has not been proved as to at whose instance it has been written and, therefore, the evidence of this extra-judicial confession, also, cannot be relied upon. The extra-judicial confession is a weak type of evidence, but it can be acted upon and a conviction can be based on it provided it is found that the extra-judicial confession made by the accused is voluntary one, true and trustworthy. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable manner of doubt whether such type of extra-judicial confession was made by the accused before P. W. 6 Bhanwar Lal, P. W. 2 Rawta, P. W. 3 Smt. Laxmi or before P. W. 4 Smt. Raghu. This evidence of extra-judicial confession, thus, does not inspire confidence. The prosecution has, therefore, failed to prove the case against the accused-appellant beyond reasonable manner of doubt. ( 10 ) IN the result, the appeal filed by the accused-appellant Sankla, is allowed and the judgment dated 11. 4. 1985, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sirohi, convicting and sentencing the accused-appellant, is set-aside and the accused-appellant is acquitted of the offence for which he was charged. The appellant is in jail. He may be released forthwith if he is not required in any other case. Appeal allowed.