Judgment R. R. YADAV, J, J. ( 1 ) THESE three appeals are preferred against the judgment dated 2-12-1992 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barmer in Sessions Case No. 67 of 1991, by which, he found appellants Sukh Ram and Smt. Jhamku guilty for the offences under Sec. 302, and 201, IPC. Learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted both the accused-appellants under Sec. 302, IPC and sentenced them for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000. 00 each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 2 years SI under Sec. 201, IPC both the accused-appellants were sentenced to 3 years R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1000. 00 each, in case of default in payment of fine each accused to further undergo 3 months S. I. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution story, it is alleged that on 5-2-1991 Anna Ram (PW 5) s/o Haringa Ram r/o village Kharali lodged a typed report to the Superintendent of Police, Barmer to the effect that his younger brother Bhagirath aged about 22 years, r/o Village Kharali proceeded on 3-1-91 to his father-in-laws house (Susral) at village Bamarla and reached there on 4-1-91. On 4-1-91 Bhagirath reached at the dhani of Sukhram, which is in village Bamarla in the way of his Susral. Sukh Ram is brother-in-law i. e. wifes sisters husband of Bhagirath. In the aforesaid typed report, it was disclosed that Smt. Jhamku wife of Bhagirath deceased was present at the dhani of Smt. Deepa w/o Sukhram. Bhagirath stayed at the dhani of Sukh Ram and from that day whereabouts of Bhagirath is not known. He had searched his brother at all possible places. He expressed his apprehension in his said typed report to the effect that Sukh Ram and others had committed some untoward incident with his brother or detained him in wrongful confinement, therefore, the police station Sedwa may be directed to trace Bhagirath and hand him over or if they have committed some incident, it may be enquired. ( 3 ) AFTER receiving the aforesaid typed report, the Superintendent of Police, Barmer directed the Station House Officer, Sedwa to take necessary action. The Station House Officer, Sedwa directed to Shri Khhuman Singh, Sub Inspector, Incharge of Police Out-post, Ogala to submit his enquiry report. The aforesaid complaint was received in the office of Dy. ( 3 ) AFTER receiving the aforesaid typed report, the Superintendent of Police, Barmer directed the Station House Officer, Sedwa to take necessary action. The Station House Officer, Sedwa directed to Shri Khhuman Singh, Sub Inspector, Incharge of Police Out-post, Ogala to submit his enquiry report. The aforesaid complaint was received in the office of Dy. S. P. Chouhatan, who deputed the S. H. O. , Sedwa to make enquiry on the spot. PW 16, Shri Punj Raj Singh, Dy. S. P. also rushed up to Bamdala camp where on 11-2-91 statement of PW 4 Thakara Ram was recorded, which is Ex. P/6 and on the basis of the statement (Ex. P/6) given by PW 4 Thakara Ram to Dy. S. P. (PW 16) on 11-2-91, a first information report was drawn under Sec. 302, 201, and 120-B, IPC against the accused-appellants along with two other accused-persons viz. Smt. Deepa and Ridmal Singh. The aforesaid FIR is marked as Ex. P/42. ( 4 ) IT is pertinent to mention that in the aforesaid statement dated 11-2-91, a detailed reference of extra-judicial confession made by Smt. Jhamku, Ridmal Singh and Smt. Deepa is disclosed. In their extra-judicial confession, accused Ridmal Singh, Smt. Jhamku and Smt. Deepa stated that deceased Bhagirath did reach in the evening on 4-1-91 at the dhani of Sukh Ram where Smt. Jhamku and Sukh Ram had committed his murder causing injuries by an axe and his dead-body was buried on the "lata" belonging to Sukh Ram and was covered beneath the Bajaras hay stack and grass. It is also disclosed that Sukh Ram and Mohan had illicit connection with Smt. Jhamku wife of the deceased, as such, in order to remove the obstruction in their way, they have committed the murder of Bhagirath and buried his dead-body and covered the same with the Bajaras hay stack and grass. PW 16, Punj Raj Singh, Dy. S. P. on the basis of the extra-judicial confession of Smt. Jhamku and Smt. Deepa before the village Panchayat, summoned PW 10, Dr. Mohanlal Meghnani and PW 1 Shiv Dutt, Executive Magistrate in presence of two motbir witnesses namely. PW 16, Punj Raj Singh, Dy. S. P. on the basis of the extra-judicial confession of Smt. Jhamku and Smt. Deepa before the village Panchayat, summoned PW 10, Dr. Mohanlal Meghnani and PW 1 Shiv Dutt, Executive Magistrate in presence of two motbir witnesses namely. PW 13 Sajan Ram and PW 14 Thakara Ram, at a distance of 10 pawandas from the dhani of Sukh Ram found the "lata" of Sukh Ram where there was 9 x 14 x 8 heep of Bajaras hay stack belonging to Sukhram and after its removal, 6 x 2 (feet) fresh digging was found. A stick was inserted into fresh digging and after examination of stik by the people present, it was found that it was giving stinking smell of decomposed human body. The Dy. S. P. directed digging of the place and after digging 21/2 feet deep, a gudri (used by poor people on the bed) was seen in which human body was wrapped. After looking to the dead-body, clothes and shoes kept beside the dead-body, P. W. 4, Thakara Ram identified the dead-body to be of Bhagirath. The dead-body of Bhagirath was found in decomposed condition. Besides the dead-body, two Angouchhas belonging to deceased Bhagirath were also found. The post-mortem of the dead-body was conducted by PW 10 Mohan Lal Meghnani, Medical Jurist on the spot. Blood-stained gudri, shoes, Angouchhas were taken into possession by the investigating officer and sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur for chemical examination. ( 5 ) ACCUSED Ridmal Singh, Smt. Jhamku and Smt. Deepa were arrested by the investigating officer but Sukh Ram appellant could not be arrested because after the first Panchayat at his Dhani where he came to know that the matter has been reported to the police, he absconded after taking loan from one creditor of Dhorimana. ( 6 ) IT is pertinent to mention that challan was submitted by the police against the accused Ridmal Singh, Smt. Jhamku and Smt. Deepa after declaring Sukh Ram as absconder. When case was committed to the court of Sessions, accused Sukh Ram surrendered himself, and was sent in judicial custody and later on, the police submitted an additional chargesheet against him. ( 7 ) LEARNED Additional Sessions Judge, Barmer framed the charges against the four accused-persons for the offences under Secs. 302, 201 and 120-B, IPC. When case was committed to the court of Sessions, accused Sukh Ram surrendered himself, and was sent in judicial custody and later on, the police submitted an additional chargesheet against him. ( 7 ) LEARNED Additional Sessions Judge, Barmer framed the charges against the four accused-persons for the offences under Secs. 302, 201 and 120-B, IPC. ( 8 ) ALL the four accused-persons pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. The prosecution examined 17 witnesses in support of the prosecution story and produced the documents Ex. P/1 to Ex. P/42. The accused-persons had not examined any defence witness but they have adduced Ex. p/1 to Ex. D/7 in support of their defence. According to he appellants, they are falsely implicated and the witnesses are deposing against them as they are closely related to deceased Bhagirath. ( 9 ) AFTER hearing learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the appellants, learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish guilt against accused Ridmal Singh and Smt. Deepa beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, they were extended benefit of doubt and as such acquitted. ( 10 ) LEARNED Additional Sessions Judge relying on extra-judicial confession coupled with the other circumstantial evidence and recoveries recorded the finding of guilt against the appellants Sukh Ram and Smt. Jhamku and sentenced both of them under Sec. 302, and 201, IPC as stated in the preceding paragraph. ( 11 ) WE have heard Mr. S. K. Mathur, learned counsel for the accused-appellants and Mr. D. R. Bohara, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and carefully gone through the oral and documentary evidence on record. ( 12 ) IN the instant case, legality and propriety of the finding of guilt recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is challenged before as on the following grounds : (i) Motive is not proved. (ii) Extra-judicial confession is weak evidence and it requires corroboration and in absence of corroboration, it is unsafe to convict the appellants on the basis of extra-judicial confession. (iii) Mere absconding of appellant Sukh Ram is not sufficient to raise presumption about his guilt. (ii) Extra-judicial confession is weak evidence and it requires corroboration and in absence of corroboration, it is unsafe to convict the appellants on the basis of extra-judicial confession. (iii) Mere absconding of appellant Sukh Ram is not sufficient to raise presumption about his guilt. ( 13 ) BEFORE dealing with the aforesaid argument raised on behalf of the accused appellants in seriatim we think it proper to examine the ring of truth in the present case keeping in view that the extra-judicial confession always treated as a weak piece of evidence but there is no rule of law or rule of prudence that it cannot be acted upon unless corroborated. In order to demonstrate the testimonial value of extra-judicial confession, paragraph 15 of their Lordships judgment reported : in AIR 1985 SC 48 State of UP v. M. K. Anthony, is quoted in extenso. There is neither any rule of law nor of prudence that evidence furnished by extra-judicial confession cannot be relied upon unless corroborated by some other credible evidence. The Courts have considered the evidence of extra-judicial confession a weak piece of evidence (See Jagta v. State of Haryana (1975) 1 SCR 165 , at P. 190and State of Punjab v. Bhajan Singh (1975) 1 SCR 747 , at P. 751 : AIR 1975 SC 258 , at P. 261 In Sahoo v. State of UP (1965) 3 SCR 86 it was held that an extra-judicial confession may be an expression of conflict of emotion, a conscious effort to stifle the pricked conscience; an argument to find excuse or justification for his act; or a penitent or remorseful act of exaggeration of his part in the crime. Before evidence in this behalf is accepted, it must be established by cogent evidence what were the exact words used by the accused. The Court proceeded to state that even if so much was established, prudence and justice demand that such evidence cannot be mad the sole ground of conviction. It may be used only as a corroborative piece of evidence. In that case, the evidence was that after the commission of murder the accused was heard uttering to himself that he has finished the deceased. The High Court did not interfere with the conviction observing that the evidence of extra-judicial confession is corroborated by circumstantial evidence. It may be used only as a corroborative piece of evidence. In that case, the evidence was that after the commission of murder the accused was heard uttering to himself that he has finished the deceased. The High Court did not interfere with the conviction observing that the evidence of extra-judicial confession is corroborated by circumstantial evidence. However, in Pyara Singh v. State of Punjab (1978) 1 SCR 597 , this Court observed that the law does not require that evidence of an extra-judicial confession should in all cases be corroborated. It thus appears that extra-judicial confession appears to have been treated as a weak piece of evidence but there is no rule of law nor rule of prudence that it cannot be acted upon unless corroborated. If the evidence about extra-judicial confession comes from the mouth of witness/witnesses who appear to be unbiased, not even remotely inimical to the accused, and in respect of whom nothing is brought out which may tend to indicate that he may have a motive for attributing an untruthful statement to the accused; the words spoken to by the witness are clear, unambiguous and unmistakably convey that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime and nothing is omitted by the witness which may militate against kit, then after subjecting the evidence of the witness to a rigorous test, on the touch-stone of credibility, if it passes the test, the extra-judicial confession can be accepted and can be the basis of a conviction. In such a situation to go in search of corroboration itself tends to cast, a shadow of doubt over the evidence. If the evidence of extra-judicial confession is reliable, trustworthy and beyond reproach the same can be relied upon and a conviction can be founded thereon. " ( 14 ) NOW we propose to take up the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellants in seriatim :- (i) MOTIVE IS NOT PROVED : (a) It is well to remember that the prosecution is not bound to prove motive of any offence in a criminal case, inasmuch as, the motive is known only to perpetrator of crime if the motive is proved by the prosecution, the court has to consider it and to see whether it is adequate. (b) In our considered opinion, in the instant case, the prosecution has successfully proved motive against the appellants Sukh Ram and Smt. Jhamku wife of the deceased, who had illicit connection. We are in agreement with the finding of the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the prosecution has failed to prove adequate motive against Ridmal and Smt. Deepa, therefore, both the accused have been rightly extended the benefit of doubt by him. In the present case, we have examined the deposition of PW 5 Anna Ram and PW 6 Sobha Ram, both are real brothers of deceased Bhagirath, who had categorically stated that they made an attempt to persuade Smt. Jhamku not to have illicit connection with Sukhram but she continued to maintain her illicit connection with Sukhram. In order to remove obstructions in their illicit connection, the appellants eliminated the deceased by committing his murder. A deliberate concoction was made by her that the deceased had gone to Punjab for earning his livelihood in the morning of 5-1-91. Her visit to the house of her deceased-husband, after committing his murder when it was asked by PW 4 Thakara Ram that why she had come alone and where was his brother Bhagirath, she gave a false reply to the effect that he had gone to Punjab to earn his livelihood. The deliberate concoction made by her in spreading false news among the family members of the deceased at his village Kharali that the deceased had gone to Punjab to earn his livelihood is a very strong circumstance against her. It is further deposed by PW 4 Thakara Ram that she had come to her husbands house at the direction of her husband. According to her, before going to Punjab, the deceased had instructed her to go to his house at village Kharali. After spreading the aforesaid false news, she stayed at the house of her husband for 2-3 days but suddenly she left the house of her husband with Bhabhi of PW 4 Thakara Ram and her sister Mist. Kela to the house of her uncle Gordhan without informing any member of her husbands family. After spreading the aforesaid false news, she stayed at the house of her husband for 2-3 days but suddenly she left the house of her husband with Bhabhi of PW 4 Thakara Ram and her sister Mist. Kela to the house of her uncle Gordhan without informing any member of her husbands family. The falsity of the aforesaid news spread by her was detected when real brother of deceased PW 5 Anna Ram came from Punjab and informed his family members that it was false that the deceased had gone to Punjab to earn his livelihood as he never reached to him. (c) It seems to us that the information given by PW 5 Anna Ram to his family members scared them and they became suspicious and called Panchayat of respectable members of their caste, which lead to complicity of the appellants in committing murder of Bhagirath, otherwise, Smt. Jhamku had successfully created a false impression in the mind of the family members of the deceased that her husband had gone to Punjab for earning his livelihood. It is established fact that a man can speak lie but circumstance never speak lie. In the present case, the behaviour of Smt. Jhamku as stated above lead towards an irresistable conclusion that she had illicit relation with Sukhram and after committing murder of her husband Bhagirath with Sukhram appellant made efforts to give false impression to the family members of the deceased that her husband has gone to Punjab. Knowing fully well that the dead-body of Bhagirath is buried in the lata of Sukhram and covered beneath the Bajaras hay stack and grass at a distance of 10 pawandas from the dhani of Sukhram, which was later on discovered by the police at her instance. (d) In our considered opinion, Indian Evidence Act as contemplated under Sec. 3 of the Act, a fact is to be taken to be proved after considering the matter before it, the Court either believes it to exist or considers its existence so probable that a prudent mind ought under the circumstance of a particular case to act upon the supposition that it exists. It is also worthy of remembrance that a court may presume the existence of any, fact which thinks likely to have happened regard being had to the common course of natural events and human conduct of a particular case. It is also worthy of remembrance that a court may presume the existence of any, fact which thinks likely to have happened regard being had to the common course of natural events and human conduct of a particular case. In the instant case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge after analytical discussion has rightly came to the conclusion that accused-appellant Smt. Jhamuku had illicit connection with appellant Sukh Ram, which led towards the brutal murder of Bhagirath. We express our agreement with the aforesaid finding about the motive of the appellants recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, which is based on cogent and convincing reasons. ( 15 ) IN view of the aforesaid discussion, the first argument raised on behalf of the appellant regarding failure or prosecution to establish motive is not acceptable to us. II. EXTRA-JUDICIAL CONFESSION IS A WEAK EVIDENCE AND IT REQUIRES CORROBORATION AND IN ABSENCE OF CORROBORATION, IT IS UNSAFE TO CONVICT THE APPELLANTS ON THE BASIS OF EXTRA-JUDICIAL CONFESSION : (a) As regard second limb of argument of the learned counsel for the appellants, it is to be noticed that admission and confession are exceptions to the hear say rule. They are placed in the category of relevant evidence by the Evidence Act (from Sec. 17 to 30) presumably on the ground that being declaration against the interest of the person making that they are probably true. As a matter of fact, the statement is genesis while admission is the species and confession is the sub-species. The concept of extra-judicial confession is envisaged under Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act. In order to avoid repetition and to maintain brevity, it is sufficient to state that in view of the decision of the apex court in M. K. Anthony (Supra), it is settled that there is neither any rule of law nor of prudence that evidence furnished by extra-judicial confession cannot be relied upon unless corroborated by some other credible evidence. In paragraph 15 of the aforesaid judgment, their Lordships have considered all its earlier judgments on the subject including AIR 1966 SC 40 upon which much emphasis has been placed by the learned counsel for the appellants. (b) Learned counsel for the appellants also argued that extra-judicial confession made by the co-accused Smt. Jhamku cannot be utilized as sole basis for conviction of appellant Sukh Ram. (b) Learned counsel for the appellants also argued that extra-judicial confession made by the co-accused Smt. Jhamku cannot be utilized as sole basis for conviction of appellant Sukh Ram. In fact, this argument raised by the learned counsel or the appellants requires serious consideration inasmuch as, it is true that accused Sukh Ram after the first Panchayat, when he came to know that the matter has been reported to the police after taking loan from a creditor of Dhorimana, absconded and surrendered himself when the police submitted the charge-sheet against three accused-persons and matter was committed to the court of Sessions. Since, accused Sukhram had absconded therefore, there was no question to record his extra-judicial confession arises. (c) In our humble opinion, it is true that the extra-judicial confession cannot be made the sole basis for conviction of co-accused. However, there is no bar in getting assurance from extra-judicial confession of co-accused, if the facts and circumstances brought out on record by themselves indicate unmistakably that the co-accused Sukh Ram has been connected with the crime. Thus, according to us, the extra-judicial confession can be used for this limited purpose for arriving at a conclusion regarding the guilt of the co-accused. In the instant case, the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge passed through the aforesaid test, therefore, the criticism of the learned counsel for the appellants about reliance of the extra-judicial confession of co-accused appellant Smt. Jhamku against accused Sukh Ram does of hold water and hereby repelled. (d) The cumulative effect of extra-judicial confession coupled with the other circumstantial evidence brought on record and discussed fully by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is sufficient to hold that within all human probabalities, Bhagirath was done to death by two appellants, who after causing fatal injuries by an axe, buried his dead-body on a "lata" belonging to accused Sukh Ram at a distance of i0 pawandas from his dhani and covered the place by "dokas of Bajara" (Bajaras hay stack ). Statement of PW 2 Hari Kishan Patwari throws a flood of light that "lata" and "dokas of Bajaras" with which the buried place was covered, was in exclusive possession of appellant Sukh Ram. There is no possibility whatsoever except that the appellants Smt. Jhamku and Sukh Ram had committed murder of Bhagirath and buried his dead-body at a distance of 10 pawandas from the dhani of Sukh Ram. There is no possibility whatsoever except that the appellants Smt. Jhamku and Sukh Ram had committed murder of Bhagirath and buried his dead-body at a distance of 10 pawandas from the dhani of Sukh Ram. Various other circumstantial evidence discussed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, in our opinion, form a complete chain and leave no reasonable ground for a conclusion not consistant with the innocence of the accused-appellants before us. III. MERE ABSCONDING OF APPELLANT SUKH RAM IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO RAISE PRESUMPTION ABOUT HIS GUILT (a) Learned counsel for the appellants while arguing the case of accused-appellant Sukhram submitted that it is not unknown that even an innocent man may feel panicky and try to evade arrest when wrongfully suspected of a grave crime as such is the instinct of self-preservation. The attempt of an accused-person to run away after the crime is no doubt a relevant piece of evidence but too much of importance cannot be attached to this piece of evidence as this circumstance is only a very small item in the chain of circumstantial evidence. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the learned Additional Sessions Judge committed an error giving importance in drawing the inference against the appellant Sukhram from the facts of his absconding. (b) In our humble opinion, the argument of learned counsel for the appellants has substance at least in the present case. The learned Subordinate Courts are at liberty to draw inference of guilt from the fact of absconding of an accused immediately after offence is committed provided the fact of absconding is put to him under Sec. 313, Cr. P. C. We have examined the statement of Sukh Ram recorded u/s 313, Cr. P. C. and found that the fact of his absconding has not been put to him, therefore, in the present case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has no legal justification to draw inference from the fact of absconding of accused Sukh Ram about his guilt. P. C. We have examined the statement of Sukh Ram recorded u/s 313, Cr. P. C. and found that the fact of his absconding has not been put to him, therefore, in the present case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has no legal justification to draw inference from the fact of absconding of accused Sukh Ram about his guilt. (c) A close scrutiny of the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge reveals that he has not placed too much importance on the fact of absconding of accused Sukh Ram in the present case in recording the finding of guilt against the accused-appellant Sukh Ram, therefore, even if the circumstance of absconding of accused Sukh Ram relied upon by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is excluded, it will riot vitiate the finding of guilt recorded against the appellant Sukh Ram. ( 16 ) IN support of the finding of guilt recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge he has placed reliance on various other compelling circumstantial evidence and materials against accused Sukhram which brought home the guilt of appellant Sukh Ram including recovery of the dead-body of deceased Bhagirath from the "lata" which was in his exclusive possession. The recoveries of clothes, a pair of shoes, a pair of golden Murki, two Angouchhas belonging to the deceased and other over-whelming incriminating articles are incompatible with any possible inference of innocence of accused Sukh Ram. The persons are convicted not merely on direct evidence alone but also on circumstantial testimony. The learned Additional Sessions Judge had made analytical discussion of the eye-witness account that the deceased was last seen in the company of the appellants, on 4-1-91 and since then, his whereabouts are not known. The discovery of the dead-body of Bhagirath from the "lata" of accused Sukh Ram covered with the "dokas of Bajaras" belonging to him and the "lata" is found to be in his exclusive possession have further enhanced the incriminating impact. ( 17 ) FROM close scrutiny of the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge regarding finding of guilt against the present accused-appellants is eminently just and proper and it does not require any interference. The finding of guilt recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is based on analytical discussion of the circumstantial evidence on record coupled with the extra-judicial confession. The finding of guilt recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is based on analytical discussion of the circumstantial evidence on record coupled with the extra-judicial confession. In support of the finding of guilt, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has given cogent and convincing reasons which are perfectly legal and valid and as such, the finding of guilt recorded by the learned Additional Session Judge is liable to be affirmed. As a result of the afore-mentioned discussion, the appeals are dismissed. The conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions judge, Barmer under Section 302 and 201, IPC are hereby affirmed and accused-appellants are directed to serve out the remaining sentences awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barmer vide judgment dated 2-12-1992. Appeal dismissed.