R. K. DASH, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER, accused in G. R. Case No. 3136 of 1985, was convicted for the offence under S. 381, IPC by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Cuttack, vide judgement dated 12-3-1992 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for further period of six months. Being aggrieved, he preferred Criminal Appeal No. 51 of 1992. Learned First Additional Sessions Judge; Cuttack, on reappreciation of the evidence upheld the conviction and sentence. It is against this judgement and order of the appellate court that the present revision is filed. ( 2 ) SHORN of unnecessary details, the prosecution case unfurled during trial, is that the accused was an employee under Harekrishna Agrawalla, P. W. 2 Prior to the alleged incident that happened on 13-11-86. P. W. 2 had kept huge amount of Rs. 67,000/- in the Godrej almirah of his office and taking advantage of his temporary absence the accused committed theft of the whole amount. On 20-11-86 at about 10 P. M. when P. W. 2 opened the almirah and found the amount missing, he reported the matter to the Police and sent P. W. 2 Akshaya Rout, P. W. 3 Prafulla Kumar Mohapatra, an Advocate's Clerk and P. W. 4 Sudarsan Hati in search of the accused. It is stated that these three witnesses found the accused at Bargarh and on their asking the accused confessed to have committed theft of the aforesaid amount. After usual investigation police laid charge-sheet against the accused to stand his trial under Section 381, IPC. ( 3 ) THE accused denied the accusation and pleaded innocence. ( 4 ) ADMITTEDLY there was no eye-witnesses to the incident. The prosecution case is mainly based on the alleged extra judicial confession made by the accused. The question, therefore, posed is whether the evidence of P. Ws. 1, 3 and 4 inspires confidence so as to put the seal of approval to the finding of guilt recorded by the two courts below. The word "confession" has not been defined in the Evidence Act. It has been interpreted by jurists as a statement of the accused acknowledging his guilt of the offence with which he stands charged. 1, 3 and 4 inspires confidence so as to put the seal of approval to the finding of guilt recorded by the two courts below. The word "confession" has not been defined in the Evidence Act. It has been interpreted by jurists as a statement of the accused acknowledging his guilt of the offence with which he stands charged. To make the confessional statement relevant and admissible it is obligatory for the prosecution to show that it is free and voluntary and if these two tests are satisfied the same can be accepted as any other evidence to base a conviction. In order to render the confession worthy of belief regard must be had to (i) the person to whom it was made (ii) the connection, if any, of the accused with him, (iii) the occasion or reason for the accused to make such confession and (iv) the circumstances in which it was made. For judging the acceptability of extra-judicial confession, their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Heramba Brahma v. State of Assam, AIR 1982 SC 1595 : (1983 Cri LJ (149) observed thus (Para 18) :-". . . . . . extra-judicial confession to afford a piece of reliable evidence must pass the test of reproduction of exact words, the reason or motive for confession and person selected in whom confidence is reposed. In Rahim Beg v. State of U. P. (1972) 3 SCC. 759 : AIR 1973 SC 343 : (1972 Cri LJ 1260); this Court while examining the evidence as to extra judicial confession made by two accused to Mohmed Nazim Khan (P. W. 4) observed that (Para 18) :"there was no history of previous association between the witness and the two accused as may justify the inference that the accused could repose confidence in him. In the circumstances, it seems highly improbable that the two accused would to go Mohmed Nasim Khan and blurt out a confession. "applying the aforesaid test to the present case it is to be seen whether evidence of P. Ws. 1, 3 and 4 regarding, the alleged confession of the accused can be held to be worthy of belief. ( 5 ) ADMITTEDLY P. Ws. 1, 3 and 4 in the present case had no prior acquaintance with the accused. As deposed to by P. W. 1. 1, 3 and 4 regarding, the alleged confession of the accused can be held to be worthy of belief. ( 5 ) ADMITTEDLY P. Ws. 1, 3 and 4 in the present case had no prior acquaintance with the accused. As deposed to by P. W. 1. on being requested by P. W. 2 he along with P. Ws. 3 and 4 left for Bargarh in search of the accused. P. W. 3 is an Advocate's clerk. So far as P. W. 4 is concerned, he lives on tuition. It is stated by P. W. 4 that while he was sitting with P. W. 3 in the chamber of one Sunakar Jena. Advocate, he was requested to accompany with P. Ws. 1 and 3 to Balangir to search for the accused. All these three person have stated in parrot like manner that the accused confessed before them that he committed theft of Rs. 67,000/- of which he had spent Rupees 2,000/ -. Since P. Ws. 1, 3 and 4 were unknown to the accused. it is difficult to believe that the accused selected them to make confessional statement admitting his guilt. ( 6 ) IN view of the discussions made above and on consideration of the evidence of P. Ws. 1. 3 and 4, I am not inclined to uphold the order of conviction and sentence recorded against the accused. ( 7 ) IN the result, the revision is allowed. The judgements of both the courts below are set aside and consequently, accused is acquitted of the offence under Section 381, IPC. Fine amount, if realised, be refunded to him. Revision allowed. .