R. K. PATRA, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant Rajib Lochan Gamaik stand convicted under section 302, I. P. C. for having committed murder by intentionally causing the death of his wife Fulbani. He has also been convicted under section 498a, I. P. C. for having subjected her to cruelty. On the former count, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and on the letter to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- with a defaulting sentence. The sentences are to run concurrently. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, the prosecution case is that the appellant had married Fulbani on 11. 5. 1987. They have been living together in the house of the appellant in village Ratanpur. The appellant used to pick up quarrel with his wife because the latter was of black complexion. He was also ill treating her on this ground. Meetings were held to bring about record between them in village Ratanpur as well as in the village of Fulbani. On 14. 10. 1989 a meeting was held which was attended by persons belonging to different villages. In the said meeting the appellant agreed to behave properly with the wife. The prosecution alleges that on 6. 4. 1990 at 7 p. m. the appellant asked his wife to give him rice but she served him with fermented rice on account of which he get annoyed with her and throttled to her death. ( 3 ) THE plea of the appellant is one of denial. ( 4 ) THERE is no dispute that death of Fulbani was caused due to throttling. On the basis of extra- judicial confession, as deposed by P. Ws. 1, 2 and 6, the Additional Sessions Judge has found the appellant guilty and has convicted him as aforesaid. ( 5 ) P. WS. 1, 2 and 6 are the witnesses who stated about the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant. The said confession is retracted. There can be no dispute that conviction can be maintained on the basis of extra-judicial confession provided it is true and trustworthy. If the same lakhks in probability; the Court would be justified in rejecting it. ( 6 ) SHRI Sahoo, learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that the evidence of P. Ws. 1, 2 and 6 is thoroughly unsatisfactory. If the same lakhks in probability; the Court would be justified in rejecting it. ( 6 ) SHRI Sahoo, learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that the evidence of P. Ws. 1, 2 and 6 is thoroughly unsatisfactory. P. W. 1 is the brother of the deceased Fulbani. He stated that the appellant was not pulling on well with the deceased Fulbani and there was dissension between the couple on account of which a panchayat was held in his village Dharanidharpur wherein the appellant agreed to live amicably with his wife. It is in the evidence that the said meeting was held on 14. 10. 1988. P. W. 1 stated that after that meeting his sister Fulbani did not come to their house. But he was visiting her at Ratanpur. According to him, on the date of occurrence, he had gone to her sisters house at Ratanpur and found her alright and he returned to his village Dharanidharpur. At 11 p. m. Tikunu Swain P. W. 9 and Kapila Swain of Ratanpur came and informed him about the death of Fulbani. On getting this news, he along with P. W. 2 and P. W. 6 went to village Ratanpur and found her sister lying dead on a charpoy. He further stated that on being asked about the cause of the death of Fulbani, the appellant told them that in the night of occurrence when he asked Fulbani to serve him food, she gave fermented rice for which he got annoyed and throttled her to death. He further went on to say that on hearing this confession from the appellant, he went to the Gramarakhi and called him to the spot who guarded the dead body. Thereafter, he along with one Jagadananda Pradhan went to Deogarh police station and lodged F. I. R. It was brought out in his cross-examination that when he reached the house of the appellant, all the villagers of Ratanpur were present. But none of the villagers of Ratanpur has came forward to corroborate the evidence of P. W. 1 about the appellant making confession. P. W. 1 has not stated as to on whose asking the appellant made the so-called confession. P. W. 2, a covillager of P. W. 1 stated that he along with P. Ws. But none of the villagers of Ratanpur has came forward to corroborate the evidence of P. W. 1 about the appellant making confession. P. W. 1 has not stated as to on whose asking the appellant made the so-called confession. P. W. 2, a covillager of P. W. 1 stated that he along with P. Ws. 1 and 6 came to village Ratanpur and went to the house of the appellant and on being asked regarding the cause of death of Fulbani, the appellant told them that in the evening he (appellant) wanted to go to attend a feast in the village and when he asked Fulbani to give him rice to carry the same to the place of the feast where only meat was prepared, his wife (Fulbani) gave Tfermented ricet to him for which he became annoyed and gave fist blows on the threat of Fulbani and threw her on the charpoy after throttling her. After putting a wrapper on her, he went away to attend the feast and after return, he found her dead. It was brought out in his cross-examination that he did not state before the police about the appellant giving fist blows on the throat of the deceased and thereafter throttling and throwing her on the charpoy. His version before the police was that the appellant told him that on his return after attending the feast, he found the deceased lying dead. This story deposed by P. W. 8 is quite different from the version of P. W. 1 P. W. 5, a villager of Ratanpur stated that on the date of occurrence, a feast was celebrated by the villagers in his house and it continued till 10o clock and the appellant was present in the feast. After attending the feast, all persons returned to their respective houses including the appellant and the appellant immediately reaching his house raised alarm in the village inviting attention of the villagers saying that when he called his wife Fulbani, she was not responding. P. W. 9 another villager of Ratanpur also stated that there was a feast in the house of P. W. 5 which was attended by villagers and rice, dal, khata and meat had been prepared in the feast. P. W. 9 another villager of Ratanpur also stated that there was a feast in the house of P. W. 5 which was attended by villagers and rice, dal, khata and meat had been prepared in the feast. If the feast was held in the house of P. W. 5 with the aforesaid menu, there was no occasion for the appellant to carry rice to the feast as deposed by P. W. 2. P. W. 6 who deposed about the appellant making extra-judicial confession is the cousin of P. W. I. He stated that after their arrival, on being asked, the appellant conferred that in the evening he asked his wife to give him food, but she gave fermented rice for which he became angry and throttled her neck and thereafter he went to attend the village feast. He stated that when he went near the dead body of Fulbani, the appellant and his brother were present and none else. This evidence is contrary to the evidence of P. W. 1 when he stated that many villagers of Ratanpur were present in front of the house of the appellant. In the cross-examination, he (P. W. 6) stated that he did not ask anything to the appellant but P. W. 1 asked about the death of Fulbani. P. W. 1 does not say that on his asking, the appellant made the confession. There is, thus, no Satisfactory explanation as to on whose asking the appellant made the so-called extra-judicial confession. The evidence of P. W. 1 that after hearing the confession from the appellant, he went. to the Gramarakhi and called him to the spot who guarded the dead body is not acceptable. P. W. 5, a villager of Ratanpur stated that Gramarakhi came to the spot on being called by the villagers who guarded the dead body and after arrival of Gramarakhi, P. W. 1 and some villagers of Bharanidharpur came to the spot. P. W. 9, a villager of Ratanpur stated that the appellant came to his house at about 9 p. m. and called him in a low voice and informed him that his wife was sleeping and was not responding to his reply. On hearing this, he went to the house of the appellant and found Fulbani lying dead on a charpoy. On hearing this, he went to the house of the appellant and found Fulbani lying dead on a charpoy. He further stated that when the villagers of Ratanpur asked the appellant after hearing the news of death of Fulbani, the appellant expressed his inability to know the reason of the death. If the appellant expressed his ignorance about the cause of death of his wife to the villagers of Ratanpur, it is highly doubtful that immediately on asking after arrival of P. W. I, he would admit to have throttled his wife to death. It is in the evidence that when P. W. 1 and his villagers came to Ratanpur, many villagers of Ratanpur were present at the spot, but none of them spoke about the so called extra-judicial confession. For all the reasons aforesaid, no implicit reliance can be placed on the evidence of P. Ws. 1, 2 and 6 to fasten the appellant with the guilt. There is also absolutely no evidence in support of the conviction under Section 498-A, I. P. C. On perusal of the evidence we are satisfied that the conviction of the appellant cannot be supported as the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. ( 7 ) IN the result, the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Sections 302 and 498-A, I. P. C. are hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges. He may be set at liberty forthwith if his detention is not required in connection with any other case. The Jail Criminal Appeal is allowed. Appeal allowed. Accused acquitted. .