JUDGMENT Appellant Phoolmet Bai has filed this appeal from jail against her conviction under section 304 (II) IPC and sentence of 10 years R.I. recorded by Sessions Judge, Raigarh in S.T. No. 60/89 through judgment dated 23.1.1990. Brief facts, relevant for deciding this appeal, are that appellant Phoolmet Bai is wife of deceased Santram and was residing with him in his house in village, Gudubahal, police station Lalunga, District Raigarh. Deceased San tram was in the habit of taking liquor frequently and after consuming liquor used to quarrel with his wife, appellant Phoolmet Bai. At times deceased San tram used to suspect even the character of the appellant. In this background on 21.3.89; at about midnight, some altercation took place between the husband and wife, and the appellant gave one blow by a 'tangia' on the head of deceased Santram. On account of this head injury Santram became unconscious and ultimately died. The first information report about the incident was lodged by Dular Sahai, Kotwar of the village at police station Lalunga on 22.3.89 at 6.30 a.m. During the course of investigation, the dead body of deceased Santram was sent for autopsy. Dr. S.N. Upadhyay. Autopsy Surgeon, found one incised wound on the temporal region of deceased Santram. On dissection, Dr. Upadhyay found fracture of temporal bone and the brain matter was coming out. According to Dr. Upadhyay, San tram died due to this head injury. Police Lalunga, after completing the investigation filed charge-sheet against the accused/appellant for an offence under section 302 IPC. The trial Court framed charge under section 302 I.P.C. against the appellant/accused Phoolmet Bai. The appellant abjured her guilt and pleaded false implication. The trial Court held accused/appellant Phoolmet Bai responsible for causing the injury on the head of deceased Santram, which resulted in his death, on the evidence of her extra judicial confession made to PW-3 Bharat, PW-5 Dular Sahai, PW-6 Kripa Lal, PW-7 Savitri and PW-8 Mahipat Lal. The appellant abjured her guilt and pleaded false implication. The trial Court held accused/appellant Phoolmet Bai responsible for causing the injury on the head of deceased Santram, which resulted in his death, on the evidence of her extra judicial confession made to PW-3 Bharat, PW-5 Dular Sahai, PW-6 Kripa Lal, PW-7 Savitri and PW-8 Mahipat Lal. However, the trial Court found that the prosecution had failed to prove that the accused/appellant Phoolmet Bai intended to commit murder of her husband and as such, acquitted her of the offence under section 302 I.P.C. The trial Court found that while causing the injury on the head of deceased Santram, the accused/appellant had the knowledge that the said injury might result in the death of deceased Santram and therefore, convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant for the offence under section 304 (II) I.P.C., as mentioned above. Shri S.K. Rai, the learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the trial Court has erred in convicting the appellant though the evidence led by the prosecution falls short of proving the guilt against the appellant. Admittedly there is no eye-witness about the fact of accused/appellant Phoolmet Bai causing the injury on the head of deceased Santram. The entire prosecution case against the appellant rests on the circumstantial evidence. The only circumstance for which the evidence was led in the trial Court was about the extra judicial confession made by the accused/appellant Phoolmet Bai to PW-3 Bharat, PW-5 Dular Sahai, PW-6 Kripa Lal, PW-7 Savitri and PW-8 Mahipat Lal. The evidence of extra judicial confession has always been considered as a weak type of evidence. In the first information report, lodged by PW-5 Dular Sahai, Kotwar of the village, there is no mention at all about the fact of extra judicial confession made by the accused/appellant either to him or to any other witness. On the contrary, in the first information report, it was mentioned that PW-6 Kirpa Lal, PW-7 Savitri and one Bimla, niece of the deceased, were the eye-witnesses of the incident. The evidence of PW-3 Bharat, PW-5 Dular Sahai, PW-6 Kripa Lal, PW-7 Savitri and PW-8 Mahipat LaI about the extra judicial confession is discrepant. There is no other direct or indirect evidence to connect the accused/appellant with the offence. The seizure of 'tangia', the weapon of offence admittedly was not on the information of the appellant or from her possession. The evidence of PW-3 Bharat, PW-5 Dular Sahai, PW-6 Kripa Lal, PW-7 Savitri and PW-8 Mahipat LaI about the extra judicial confession is discrepant. There is no other direct or indirect evidence to connect the accused/appellant with the offence. The seizure of 'tangia', the weapon of offence admittedly was not on the information of the appellant or from her possession. From the record it appears that 'Tangia' was seized from PW-5 Dular Sahai, Kowar of the village. From the above discussion it is found that the prosecution has failed in proving the lone circumstance of extra judicial confession against the appellant. The trial Court committed an error in not considering the material omission in the first information report about the extra judicial confession, while evaluating the evidence of prosecution witnesses about the extra judicial confession. On the above evidence this Court does not find it safe to convict the accused/appellant. As there is no legal evidence to connect the accused/appellant with the offence, this Court is left with no option, but, to acquit the appellant by giving her benefit of doubt. Therefore, the finding of the trial Court holding the accused/appellant responsible for causing the injury on the head of deceased Santram is set aside. For the foregoing reasons, this appeal deserves and is hereby allowed. The conviction of the appellant Phoolmet Bai under section 304 (II) IPC and sentence of 10 years R.I. are set aside. The appellant is in jail. She be set at liberty forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.