Judgment :- Janarthanam, J. The appellant, the accused in S.C.No. 10 of 1987 on the file of Court of Session, Pudukottai Division, Pudukottai was found guilty of an offence under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code, convicted thereunder and sentenced to imprisonment for life. 2. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the present action had been resorted to. 3. Brief facts are: .(a) The accused is a resident of Kalkudi village, situate within the jurisdiction of Viralimalai Police Station, 6 km. away. Azhagammal, (since deceased) was the wife of the accused. The marriage between them took place in the year 1968 and they were blessed with five children-three sons and two daughters. .(b) Some time prior to the occurrence which event happened on 12th November, 1986, the accused suspected the fidelity of his wife, the deceased, who was said to be having illicit relationship with P.W. 11. Some four days prior to the occurrence, the deceased appeared to have left the matrimonial abode and the husband-accused was stated to have frantically trying to trace her out. In the process of search of his wife-the deceased, the accused-husband happened to meet P.W. 10 and 11 in a tea shop and enquired about the whereabouts of his wife with P.W. 11. P.W. 11, in turn, posing an air of innocence, denied any knowledge of her whereabouts. The accused was stated to have been infuriated by such reply and even he went to the extent of beating him. P.W. 10 and few others present in the tea shop pacified and separated them and consequently no untoward incident happened on that day. After the accused left that place, P.W. 10 enquired P.W. 11 as to the reason for his being beaten up by the accused. P.W. 11 told him that he was having illicit connection with the deceased, the wife of the accused. .(c) The deceased however, returned to the matrimonial abode on 11. 1986 and was staying with the accused. On 111. 1986 at about 10 a.m. the deceased, took a goat from her house for the purpose of grazing. During her stay with her husband for the last three days she had been proclaiming that she could not live with him, unless and until a panchayat had been convened to settle the differences. On 111. 1986 at about 10 a.m. the deceased, took a goat from her house for the purpose of grazing. During her stay with her husband for the last three days she had been proclaiming that she could not live with him, unless and until a panchayat had been convened to settle the differences. The accused and deceased went and represented about the dispute between them to P.W. 9, Panchayat President, Kalkudi. P.W. 9 in turn told them that he would also join the Panchayat, if other Panchayatdars in the village were also willing to mediate the dispute between them. The accused however, got irritated by such conduct on the part of his wife. (d) When the deceased left the house, along with the goat, the accused also followed her taking in his hand, M.O. 1 aruval. When the deceased was passing the foot-path situate on the south of the mud road, leading to Kovilkattupatti village, the accused was stated to have inflicted cuts with aruval on her person, innumerable times. On receipt of the cuts, the victim-deceased fell down dead. .(e) P.W. 4, the brother of the accused, saw the accused following the deceased on the fateful day of occurrence. A little later, he was able to hear a screaming noise from the direction, where the accused and deceased proceeded. Immediately, thereafter, the accused returned alone and he appeared to have divulged to his brother P.W. 4 that he had cut and murdered the deceased. .(f) P.W. 5 is the cousin brother of the accused and like P.W. 4 he was also stated to have seen the accused, following the deceased on the fateful morning of the day of occurrence and to him also a little later, the accused was stated to have confessed as to his having committed the murder of the deceased for her immoral behaviour so that atleast the children should tread on the path of virtue and rectitude. .(g) P.W. 1 is the village Administrative Officer, Kalkudi. At 10.30 a.m. while he was in his office, the accused came to his office with M.O. 1 aruval and narrated to him as to how he happened to murder his wife-the deceased with M.O. 1 aruval. At that time, his menials, P.Ws. 2 and 3 were said to have been bodily present. At 10.30 a.m. while he was in his office, the accused came to his office with M.O. 1 aruval and narrated to him as to how he happened to murder his wife-the deceased with M.O. 1 aruval. At that time, his menials, P.Ws. 2 and 3 were said to have been bodily present. P.W. 1 recorded the statement of the accused as per his narration, in the presence of P.Ws. 2 and 3. After the completion of the statement, he read over the same to the accused and he, in turn, admitted the same to be correct. Ex.P-1 is the statement. Leaving the accused in the custody of P.Ws. 2 and 3, P.W. 1 went to the scene, to verify the veracity of the statement of the accused. On reaching the scene, he came to understand that the deceased had been mangled to death. He then returned to his office. He prepared a report, Ex.P-2. He then entrusted the custody of the accused to P.Ws. 2 and 3, along with M.O. 1 and Exs.P-1 and P-2 with a direction to hand over the accused to the Station House Officer, Viralimalai Police Station. .(h) P.W. 14 was the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Viralimalai Police Station. On 111. 1986 at about 2 p.m. while he was in charge of the Police Station, P.Ws. 2 and 3 came to the station, along with the accused and handed over Exs.P-1 and P-2 and M.O. 1. He arrested the accused. He also seized M.O. 1 from P.Ws. 2 and 3 under Ex.P-14 Form 95. He then registered a case in Cr.No. 366 of 1986 for an offence under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Ex.P-15 is the printed F.I.R. He prepared Express Reports and sent the same to the concerned officials, through constable P.W.7. He also sent a V.H.F. message to P.W. 15 Inspector of Police, regarding the occurrence. (i) P.W. 15, on receipt of V.H.F. message at 2.15 p.m. immediately rushed and reached the scene at 3 p.m. He inspected the scene and prepared Ex.P-3 observation mahazar. He also drew a sketch of the scene Ex.P-16. At 3.45 p.m. he seized from the scene M.O. 2 blood stained earth and M.O. 3 sample earth under Ex.P-4 mahazar. Exs.P-3 and P-4 were attested by P.Ws. 1 and 9. Between 4 and 6 p.m., he held inquest over the body of the deceased. He also drew a sketch of the scene Ex.P-16. At 3.45 p.m. he seized from the scene M.O. 2 blood stained earth and M.O. 3 sample earth under Ex.P-4 mahazar. Exs.P-3 and P-4 were attested by P.Ws. 1 and 9. Between 4 and 6 p.m., he held inquest over the body of the deceased. During inquest, he examined P.Ws. 1 to 4, 9 and others. Ex.P-17 is the inquest report. He caused the photographs to be taken of the deceased through Photographer P.W. 6. M.Os. 4 to 13 are the negatives and photographs. He then examined P.W. 6. He forwarded the body of the deceased through constable P.W. 8, along with Ex.P-8 requisition for the purpose of autopsy. .(j) P.W. 12 was the then Civil Assistant Surgeon attached to the Government Hospital, Manapparai. On receipt of Ex.P-8 requisition, he conducted autopsy over the body of the deceased on 111. 1986 at 11.30 a.m. Ex.P-9 is the postmortem certificate issued by him. He opined that injuries 1 to 6 described in Ex.P-9 could have been caused by cuts with a weapon like M.O.I aruval. He further opined that injuries 7 and 8 would have been caused by the tip of weapon like aruval. He also opined that injuries 1 and 2 in Ex.P-9 are sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. .(k) After the autopsy was over, P.W. 8 seized from the body of the deceased M.O. 14 saree, M.O. 15 jacket, M.O. 16 skirt and M.O. 17 nose screw and handed over them at the police station, which were seized under Ex,P-7, Form 95. .(1) P.W. 15 examined P.Ws.5, 7, 8, 10 and 12 on 111. 1986. He also remanded the accused to the judicial custody. On 111. 1986, he examined P.W. 11. On 211. 1986, he sent Ex.P-10 requisition to the Judicial II Class, Magistrate’s Court, Keeranur for the purpose of forwarding the material objects seized to the Chemical Examiner for the purpose of examination. .(m) P.W. 13 was the then Assistant, Judicial II Class Magistrate Court, Keeranur. On receipt of Ex.P-10 requisition, he despatched all the incriminating material objects, after separately packing and sealing them, to the Chemical Examiner pursuant to the directions by learned Magistrate, under the original of Ex.P-11 office copy of the letter. Exs.P-12 and P-13 are the reports of the Chemical Examiner and serologist. On receipt of Ex.P-10 requisition, he despatched all the incriminating material objects, after separately packing and sealing them, to the Chemical Examiner pursuant to the directions by learned Magistrate, under the original of Ex.P-11 office copy of the letter. Exs.P-12 and P-13 are the reports of the Chemical Examiner and serologist. .(n) After completing the investigation, P.W. 15 laid a final report under Sec. 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Judicial II Class Magistrate Keeranur for an offence under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused. 4. On committal, learned Sessions Judge framed a charge against the accused under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. The accused, when questioned as respects the charge so framed against him, denied the same and claimed to be tried. 6. The prosecution in proof of the charge framed against the accused examined P.Ws. 1 to 15, filed Exs.P-1 to P-18 and marked M.Os. 1 to 17. 7. The accused, when questioned under Sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as respects the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him, denied his complicity in the crime. He also filed a written statement under Sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure denying his complicity in the crime; He would also positively state that he did not at all give any extra judicial confession to P.W. 1 and he, in fact, did not at all go to the office of P.W. 1. He was also threatened to give a judicial confession before the Judicial Magistrate’s Court by P.Ws. 14 and 15 and despite such threat, he did not at all give any such judicial confession as desired by them. 8. Learned Sessions Judge, on consideration of the materials placed and after hearing the arguments of learned counsel sponsored by the Legal Aid Board for the accused and learned Public Prosecutor, representing the prosecution, however, has rendered a verdict as stated above. 9. From the submissions of Mr.N. Duraisamy, learned counsel appointed by the Legal Aid Board for the accused/appellant and Mr.R. Raghupathi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the prosecution the sole and lone point that arises for consideration is, as to whether the conviction and sentence, as had been imposed upon the accused, are sustainable in law, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. 10. 10. Admittedly, the case of the prosecution hangs on the circumstantial evidence. The circumstantial evidence on which reliance has been placed by the prosecution consists of the following: .(i) Motive aspect of the prosecution case. .(ii) Extra-judicial confession Ex.P-1 said to have been made by the accused, to P.W. 1, Village Administrative Officer, Kalkudi in the immediate presence of his menials, P.Ws. 2 and 3. (iii) The accused was seen following the deceased, while she was taking the goat at or about the time of occurrence, on the fateful morning by P.Ws. 4 and 5. .(iv) Immediately thereafter, a screaming noise emerging from the direction, where the accused and the deceased proceeded and immediately the accused coming alone and confession to P.Ws. 4 and 5, as to his having committed the murder of the deceased for her unchaste conduct. .(v) M.O. 1 aruval having been stained with ‘B’ group blood as that of the deceased. .(vi) Medical testimony available on record, in the shape of evidence of Doctor P.W. 12 coupled with the post-mortem certificate Ex.P-7, he issued, pointing out the probability of the injuries 1 to 6 described in Ex.P-9 having been caused by cuts with a weapon like M.O. 1. 11. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused suspected the fidelity of his wife-the deceased sometime prior to the occurrence, notwithstanding the fact that she had given birth to five children, during her long marital career, ever- since 1968. The accused suspected that his wife, the deceased was having illicit connection with P.W. 12. P.W. 11, in fact, had been examined to prove such connection and alas! for the prosecution he turned hostile wholesale. Consequently, his evidence is of no use for any purpose whatever, to the prosecution. Of course, there is the testimony of P.W. 10, who would say that P.W. 11 told him that he was having illicit connection with the deceased the wife of the accused. The evidence of P.W. 10 by itself will not take us any further in proving such illicit relationship, when especially he is not having any personal knowledge of such relationship, added to the factum of P.W. 11 turning hostile wholesale. The evidence of P.W. 10 by itself will not take us any further in proving such illicit relationship, when especially he is not having any personal knowledge of such relationship, added to the factum of P.W. 11 turning hostile wholesale. Further the evidence of P.W. 9 that he would join the Panchayat, if any such was convened, would not, by any stretch of imagination be stated to improve or advance the case of the prosecution, as’ relatable to motive aspect of any incident whatever. Above all these things, the accused was not feeling quite shy to admit during the course of questioning under Sec. 313, Crl.P.C., that his wife was not a paragon of virtue and he had been persuading her to lead a normal life, in the sense of returning to the path of rectitude and virtue, obviously in the interest of the children. Immediately after her return to the matrimonial abode on 11. 1986 she had been staying with her husband for three days prior to the occurrence and no untoward incident happened during such stay. In such state of affairs, the motive part of the prosecution case actually pales into insignificance. 13. The incriminating circumstance of the accused having been seen following the deceased on the fateful morning and immediately a screaming noise emerging from the direction, where the accused and the deceased proceeded and also the accused returning from mere and having confessed his committing the murder of the deceased-his wife to P.Ws. 4 and 5 cannot at all be stated to have been established by the prosecution, inasmuch as, both of them turned hostile wholesale. No doubt true it is, the prosecution brought on record, the earlier statements made during the course of investigation in the manner allowed by law. Despite the trouble taken by the prosecution in proving their earlier statements, it cannot be stated that any safe reliance could be placed on their testimony, in view of the fact that the courts of superior jurisdiction in this country took the view that the evidentiary value to be attached to such evidence is practically ‘nil’. 14. The incriminating circumstances of paramount importance is relatable to extrajudicial confession, stated to have been made by the accused, to P.W. 1, in the immediate presence of P.Ws. 2 and 3. Admittedly, the so-called extra-judicial confession had been retracted. 14. The incriminating circumstances of paramount importance is relatable to extrajudicial confession, stated to have been made by the accused, to P.W. 1, in the immediate presence of P.Ws. 2 and 3. Admittedly, the so-called extra-judicial confession had been retracted. It is well-settled now that a retracted extrajudicial confession, though a piece of evidence, on which reliance can be placed, has to be corroborated by independent evidence, as has been held in the case of Shambhu Singh v. State of U.P., A.I.R. 1994 S.C. 1594. Unless we are satisfied that the extra-judicial confession itself is true, voluntary and reliable, we cannot proceed further to examine whether there is any other independent corroborative piece of evidence. The moot question that arises for consideration is as to whether the extra-judicial confession, Ex.P-1, could be relied upon as being true, voluntary and reliable on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. .15. No tangible material had been placed on record to point out that P.W. 1 is intimately known to the accused, so that he could have thought of P.W. 1 to unload the burden from his mind, after the commission of the murder of his beloved wife-the deceased. If really the accused was in a mood of penitence and repentance, he could have directly walked straight to the police station and surrendered there, rather than preferring to .make an onward march to the office of P.W. 1. The prosecution would make it appear that he did not opt to go to the police station. But the materials available on record bring about certain suspicious features in the evidence of P.W. 1, when especially the case of the defence was that the accused did not at all make extra-judicial confession to P.W. 1. Even the demeanour and the conduct of P.W. 1, as observed by the court below, throws volumes of doubts as to his evidence relatable to the making of extra-judicial confession by the accused to him. While he was in the box, he was not able to give evidence as he perspired profusely and also went to the brink of fainting and consequently he came out of the box, took some rest, water and coffee and then again resumed giving evidence. All these things suggest that what he was deposing was divorced of the realities of the situation and consequently, his conscience was pricking. All these things suggest that what he was deposing was divorced of the realities of the situation and consequently, his conscience was pricking. But nonetheless he was able to depose so, obviously as a result of external pressure coming from no other source than the police personnel. This sort of an impression, we are able to get not only from his evidence but also from the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3, his menials, who were treated as hostile wholesale to the prosecution, when P.W. 2 deposed that the accused came to the police station with M.O. 1 aruval and gave a statement to P.W. 14, the Sub-Inspector of Police mat he in fact did commit the murder of his wife, the deceased. The possibility of the accused surrendering before the police station with M.O. 1 aruval and the prosecuting agency manipulating a situation in such a way as to make the accused give an extra-judicial confession before P.W. 1, Village Administrative Officer cannot be ruled out of consideration on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, when especially the efforts made by the prosecuting agency in securing his judicial confession before the Judicial II Class Magistrate, Tirumayam also faced dismal failure as a consequence of the accused not making any such confession. .16. In view of such dismal features and suspicious factors surrounding the making of extra-judicial confession, we are not able to hold that such a confession is true, voluntary and reliable. Once mis extra-judicial confession goes out of picture, the question of seeking corroborative support to such a confession, as already stated, cannot at all arise for consideration. In this view of the matter, the incriminating circumstance of aruval M.O. 1 stained with ‘B’ group blood as that of the deceased and the medical testimony available in the shape of evidence of P.W. 12 Doctor, coupled with Ex.P-9, the postmortem certificate issued by him pointing out the probability of injuries 1 to 6 found mentioned therein having been caused by a weapon like M.O. 1 aruval are of no consequence. 17. For the reasons as above, we are unable to sustain the conviction and sentence, as had been imposed on the appellant/accused by the court below. Consequently, we set aside the conviction and sentence and the accused is acquitted, by giving him the benefit of reasonable doubt. 17. For the reasons as above, we are unable to sustain the conviction and sentence, as had been imposed on the appellant/accused by the court below. Consequently, we set aside the conviction and sentence and the accused is acquitted, by giving him the benefit of reasonable doubt. The bail bond executed if any, shall also stand cancelled. The appeal is thus allowed.