JUDGMENT 1. - This State appeal is directed against the judgment dated 28.7.1978 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udaipur whereby he has acquitted the respondent of the offence charged against him. 2. Succinctly stated the prosecution story is that one Mina s/o Bhima r/o village Kendriyabor lodged an FIR at Police Station on 21.11.1977 at 1.30 P.M. with the allegation that he had quarrelled with his wife during the preceding night and killed his wife Mst. Fingi with an axe. On this report, police registered a case under sectionec. 302 IPC and started investigation. The 'Kulhari' lying near the bed of Mst. Fingi was recovered by the police vide Ex.P. 1, blood' stained 'Dhoti' of the accused was recovered vide Ex.P. 2 and the blood stained clothes of Mst. Fingi were recovered vide Ex.P. 3. The dead-body was sent for post-mortem examination. The autopsy on the dead body of Mst. Fingi was conducted by Dr. Jhala vide Ex.P. 4. The police submitted. challan against the accused under section. 302 IPC. Ultimately the case was committed to the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Udaipur. Against the accused respondent charge under Section 302 IPC was framed to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined four witnesses. In defence, the accused did not examine any witness. However, in his statement under section. 313 Cr.PC he denied the allegation that he killed his wife and stated that he has been falsely implicated. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge after completion of the trial acquitted the accused-respondent. Being aggrieved with the judgment of the learned trial court, the State has preferred this appeal praying that the accused-respondent may kindly be convicted and sentenced. 3. Mr. Singhvi, learned counsel appearing for the State has submitted that the learned trial court has erred in acquitting the accused-respondent since the circumstances of extra judicial confession, recovery of blood stained Dhoti and recovery of axe stand proved against the accused-respondent. 4. Mr. Doongar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-respondent has submitted that the accused respondent has been rightly acquitted by the learned trial court. He has supported the judgment of the learned trial court. 5. Heard learned counsel for the State as well as the learned counsel appearing for the accused-respondent and perused the material on record very carefully. 6. He has supported the judgment of the learned trial court. 5. Heard learned counsel for the State as well as the learned counsel appearing for the accused-respondent and perused the material on record very carefully. 6. On careful examination of the evidence and the circumstances of this case, we agree with the finding of the learned trial court and are satisfied that there exist no strong and compelling reasons to differ with the order of acquittal. Undoubtedly, the extra judicial confession is a very valuable piece of chain of circumstantial evidence and accused can be safely convicted on the basis of extra judicial confession provided it is of free and willing mind of the accused. The learned trial court while considering the circumstance of extra judicial confession which rests on the testimony of PW 1 Roopa before whom as alleged by the prosecution the accused made confession that he had caused death of Fingi by inflicting blows with an axe, has come to the conclusion that the accused would not go to Roopa to blurt a confession as relations of the accused with Roopa were strained. Learned counsel appearing for the State has not been able to point out any evidence from the record otherwise. Therefore, the circumstance of extra judicial confession relied upon by the State does not stand proved against the accused. Where different views,are possible, benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. 7. So far as the recovery of the axe is concerned, it is not of any avail as no formal recovery of axe as envisaged under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was made. It is not in dispute that the axe was lying near the dead body and the same was not sent for chemical examination. On the basis of such recovery, presumption of graver offence cannot be drawn so as to convict the accused-respondent with the commission of offence. The last circumstance relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the State is recovery of blood stained Dhoti of the accused-respondent which according to him was containing human blood as has been found on chemical examination, but in our opinion, it does not inculpate the accused-respondent. PW 4 Ishaq Mohammed has stated that when the accused went to him to lodge the FIR the Dhoti of the accused was not blood stained. This witness in his cross-examination affirmed the same. PW 4 Ishaq Mohammed has stated that when the accused went to him to lodge the FIR the Dhoti of the accused was not blood stained. This witness in his cross-examination affirmed the same. Moreover, during the search of the accused at the time of arrest no blood stains could be noticed on his 'Dhoti'. Accordingly, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has arrived at a finding that it creates doubt. Apart from that the medical evidence also does not support that prosecution version. The doctor has not stated that these injuries could be caused by an axe. In view of what we have discussed above, we agree with the finding of the learned trial court.Accordingly, the State appeal has no merit and the same is dismissed. The accused-respondent is already on bail. Fie need not to surrender. Bail bonds are discharged.Appeal Dismissed. *******