JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 20.7.87, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bali, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused-appellant for the offences under Sections 302 and 379 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergone imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and one year's rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 379 Indian Penal Code. The learned trial Court did not pass any sentence of fine. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Appellant Motiya was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bali, for committing the murder of Smt. Mowani (wife of PW 5 Ganga) on 16.7.86 near Hindola water- pond situated between villages Beda and Ronwada. The case of the prosecution is that on 16.7.86, Smt. Mowani had gone to Government Hospital, Sheoganj and after getting her husband admitted there, was returning to her house. While she was returning to her house, the accused, who was taking liquor at a Liquor shop at village Beda, followed her and committed her murder, took away her ornaments and clothes and threw her dead-body in the water course. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined sixteen witnesses. The accused did not examine any witness in defence. The learned trial Court, after trial, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant, as stated at the very out-set. 3. There is no eye-witness to the occurrence and the case of the prosecution rests upon the circumstantial evidence. The four circumstances, relied upon by the prosecution, are : (i) the showing of the place by the accused where he committed the murder of Smt. Mowani; (ii) the accused was last seen in the company of deceased Smt. Mowani when they were proceeding from village Beda to Ronwada; (iii) the extra-judicial confession made by the accused before PW 6 Hoosa; and (iv) recovery of the ornaments of the deceased which she was wearing at the time of the incident. The learned trial Court did not believe the circumstance of the disclosure of the place of the incident by the accused, as, according to him, the place of the incident was already known to the prosecution. The learned trial Court did not believe the circumstance of the disclosure of the place of the incident by the accused, as, according to him, the place of the incident was already known to the prosecution. The learned trial Court, also, did not believe the evidence of PW 2 Rama who alleged to have seen the accused in the company of the deceased while they were proceeding from village Beda to Ronwada during the investigation but later on did not support the prosecution case. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, also, did not believe the recovery of Tonti and Kanthi because they were recovered from an open place accessible to all. We have gone through the evidence produced by the prosecution and we are, also, of the opinion that the learned trial Court rightly disbelieved these circumstances and the reasons given by the learned trial Court for disbelieving these circumstances cannot be said to be, in any way, arbitrary, unjust or improper. The trial Court has given cogent reasons for disbelieving these circumstances. We are in agreement with the view taken by the learned trial Court and we are of the opinion that the trial Court has rightly disbelieved these circumstances. 4. The circumstances which has been relied upon by the prosecution and believed by the learned trial Court against the accused-appellant, is the extra-judicial confession made by the accused before PW 6 Husa. PW 6 Husa has stated that he was ploughing his field, where accused Moti came and requested him to stop ploughing and thereafter informed him that Mowani met him in the village and came with him upto Indola. He then committed her murder by throttling her and took-away her Hansli, Totiya and clothes. He further requested him to persuade Ganga not to lodge the report and he would return these ornaments etc. and will, also, pay the damages. In the cross-examination he has admitted that he had no relations with the accused and both belong to separate caste. He has, also, admitted that he did not attend the cremation ceremony of Smt. Mowani. He has, also, admitted that he did not known when Smt. Mowani was murdered. He has, also, admitted that he did not make any enquiry regarding the murder of Smt. Mowani. He has, however, stated that Moongla is distantly related to him. He has, also, admitted that he did not attend the cremation ceremony of Smt. Mowani. He has, also, admitted that he did not known when Smt. Mowani was murdered. He has, also, admitted that he did not make any enquiry regarding the murder of Smt. Mowani. He has, however, stated that Moongla is distantly related to him. He has, also, admitted that when the villagers collected together to mourn the demise of Smt. Mowani but he did not attend that ceremony. He did not go to the house of Ganga to express his griefs on the death of Smt. Mowani. He, also, admitted that after the disclosure made to him by the accused, he did not inform any of the villagers that the accused had made extra-judicial confession before him. He informed Ganga on the next day.Extra-judicial confession is a weak type of evidence but it can be formed a basis for conviction if it is true, voluntary and inspires confidence. While relying upon the extra-judicial confession and considering whether it is true and voluntary, it has to be seen that what were the circumstances which impelled the accused to make such statement before a person who had no intimate relations with the accused and was not even on visiting terms with the accused. The statement of PW 6 Husa regarding making of extra-judicial confession by the accused before him are contradictory. The statement given by this witness in his statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Criminal Procedure Code. is different from what has been stated by this witness before the trial Court. This witness was not related to the accused nor had he any intimate relations with the accused. The accused could not have reposed confidence in this witness because neither this witness was related to the accused nor had any intimate relations with the accused nor he was in an influential position to help the accused. He was having no intimate relations with Ganga (the husband of deceased Smt. Mowani) so as to persuade him in a helpful manner to the accused. The alleged extra-judicial confession was made by the accused before this witness after fifteen days of the incident but this witness did not disclose this fact to any other person. He was having no intimate relations with Ganga (the husband of deceased Smt. Mowani) so as to persuade him in a helpful manner to the accused. The alleged extra-judicial confession was made by the accused before this witness after fifteen days of the incident but this witness did not disclose this fact to any other person. He made this disclosure to Ganga after two-three days of his coming to village and Ganga thereafter took four to five days in lodging the report. The circumstances, in which the alleged extra-judicial confession was made by the accused before this witness, does not inspire confidence. The evidence of this witness is not free from doubt and no reliance can be placed on the statement of this witness.Further, the conduct of PW 6 Husa, before whom the alleged extra-judicial confession was made by the accused, which was later on retracted by him, throw an amount of suspicion on the veracity of this witness and after considering the statement of this witness and the attending circumstances, we are of the opinion that the alleged extra-judicial confession is neither true nor voluntary and is, also, not reliable. Further, the extra-judicial confession is beyond the human probabilities because after committing the murder of a lady in a lonely place, which incident was admittedly not witnessed by any person and the dead-body was creamated without any suspicion, it was not expected from the accused to have made extra-judicial confession before PW 6 Husa who was not related or having intimate relations with the accused. As such, the learned trial Court was not right in placing reliance over this circumstance. 5. The next circumstance, relied-upon by the prosecution and believed by the learned trial Court is the recovery of Hansli on the information and at the instance of the accused from the possession of PW 11 Phool Chand Sunar. Phool Chand Sunar has stated that he is not the regular purchaser of the old ornaments. No register has been maintained by him and only a slip (Ex. P. 7) has been produced showing the sale of Hansli to him by the accused. This Slip Ex. P. 7 bears the thumb impression of the accused. The thumb impression of the accused is by the ink different from the ink which has been used in writing this slip. That also raises a suspicion regarding the genuineness of this slip Ex. This Slip Ex. P. 7 bears the thumb impression of the accused. The thumb impression of the accused is by the ink different from the ink which has been used in writing this slip. That also raises a suspicion regarding the genuineness of this slip Ex. P. 7. Moreover, the thumb impression of the accused on this slip Ex. P. 7 has neither been proved nor it has been put to the accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code. PW 5 Ganga, who has identified this article, in his statement, has stated that the Hansli was given to Smt. Mowani by her father and he cannot say what was the weight thereof, whereas in the FIR, this witness has disclosed the weight of this Hansli as ten Tolas. This evidence of recovery of Hansli on the information and at the instance of the accused-appellant, also, does not inspire confidence. 6. Apart from above, the other infirmity in the prosecution case is that the record of the hospital showing that PW 5 Ganga was admitted to the hospital, has not beef produced and, therefore, it cannot be said that Smt. Mowani alongwith PW 3 Mangia had gone with him to the hospital and she was returning after getting her husband (Ganga) admitted in the hospital. Even the post-mortem on the deadbody of Smt Mowani was not performed and, therefore, it cannot be said that she died an unnatural death. In the absence of any evidence on record that Mowani died an unnatural death, the accused-appellant cannot be connected with the alleged murder. 7. From the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused-appellant beyond a reasonable manner of doubt and the learned trial Court was, therefore, not justified in convicting and sentencing the accused-appellant by placing reliance over the circumstantial evidence. 8. In the result, the appeal, filed by appellant Moti @ Motiya, is allowed. The judgment dated 20.7.87, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bali, convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offences under Sections 302 and 379 Indian Penal Code, is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of all the charges. He is in jail and be released forthwith if he is not required in any other case.Appeal allowed. *******