C. R. PAL, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant Sambaru Sabar in this appeal assails the order of conviction and sentence dated 26-7-1994 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Parlakhemundi in Sessions Trial Case No. 8/94 i. e. Sessions Trial Case No. 150/94 GDC convicting him under Section 325, I. P. C. and sentencing him thereunder to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case, in brief, is that on 25-1-1994 the appellant and his wife returned to their house from Garabandha market at 3. 00 p. m. after making some purchase. In that night at about 10. 00 p. m. they quarrelled with each other. At about mid-night Mangada Sabar (P. W. 2) came to Lachhumuda Sabar (P. W. 1), the father-in-law of the appellant and informed him that the appellant assaulted Raibari to death by means of a lathi. Hearing about the incident from P. W. 2, the informant (P. W. 1) along with P. W. 2, the informant (P. W. 1) along with P. W. 2 and his son Rama Sabar, son's wife Champa, sister Gurubari, sister's husband Sanku Sabar and some other villages went to the house of the appellant and found the deceased lying dead in the kitchen. Blood was oozing out from her ear, nose and mouth. The appellant was found in a drunkenstate. When asked by the informant (P. W. 1), the appellant told him that as the deceased refused to give him money to purchase liquor, he assaulted her and pushed her for which she fell down on a stone and sustained bleeding injuries whereafter dragging her into the kitchen he killed her by trampling over her neck. On the next day P. W. 1 orally reported about the occurrence in the Police Station which was reduced into writing and a case was registered. In course of investigation, police arrested the appellant and finally charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant for an offence under Section 302, I. P. C. The case ultimately came to the Court of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Parlakhemundi for trial where the appellant stood charged under Section 302, I. P. C. for committing murder of his wife Raibari to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. ( 3 ) THE case of the appellant was a complete denial of the allegations levelled against him. Sessions Judge, Parlakhemundi for trial where the appellant stood charged under Section 302, I. P. C. for committing murder of his wife Raibari to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. ( 3 ) THE case of the appellant was a complete denial of the allegations levelled against him. According to him, his wife who was drunk fell down on a stone and died. ( 4 ) THE prosecution examined as many as eleven witnesses and exhibited the documents; such as, the F. I. R. , seizure list, inquest report, post-mortem examination report, spot map etc. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, as it appears, believing the evidence relating to extra-judicial confession said to have been made by the appellant before the P. Ws. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6, convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid. ( 5 ) AS the learned counsel M/s. N. K. Singh, P. K. Jana and A. Kanungo engaged through the Legal Aid and Advice Board did not turn up to argue the case on behalf of the appellant, the impugned judgment, depositions of witnesses and the exhibits were perused and on hearing the learned Addl. Standing Counsel Sri. S. K. Nayak, this judgment is passed. ( 6 ) IN this case there is no dispute about the death of the deceased Raibari. It is also not in dispute that she died due to the injuries sustained by her. The question is who is responsible for those injuries. From the record, it is noticed that there is no eye witness to the alleged assault by the appellant. The materials available against the appellant to connect him with the alleged murder is the extra-judicial confession made by him which is retracted and the recovery of a blood stained cloth from his possession. Another circumstance against him is that he quarrelled with his wife in the night of occurrence. ( 7 ) CONVICTION is based mainly on the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant. There is no doubt that on the basis of extra-judicial confession conviction can be maintained. But in order to sustain a conviction solely on the basis of extra-judicial confession, the evidence relating to extra-judicial confession must be clear, cogent, true and trustworthy. ( 7 ) CONVICTION is based mainly on the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant. There is no doubt that on the basis of extra-judicial confession conviction can be maintained. But in order to sustain a conviction solely on the basis of extra-judicial confession, the evidence relating to extra-judicial confession must be clear, cogent, true and trustworthy. In Bhanu Dei v. Joginath Pradhan, 1985 (1) DLR 638, it is held that 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 the person selected in whom confidence is reposed. Keeping in view the above principle, when the evidence on record is scrutinised, the same fails to inspire any confidence to sustain the order of conviction and sentence. In this context, it may be seen that the alleged extra-judicial confession is said to have been made by the appellant at different places, at different time. According to P. W. 3, the first such confession was made before her in her house in the night of occurrence. For the second time the confession was made by the appellant in his own house before P. Ws. 2 and 3 and then again before P. Ws. 1, 2, 3, 6 and other villagers after arrival of P. W. 1 in the place of occurrence. Confession is also said to have been made before P. W. 4, a Constable of Police inside the police station. Now coming to the extra-judicial confession said to have been made before the P. W. 3 in her house it is noticed from the evidence of P. W. 3 that at about mid-night the appellant went to her house and called her and her husband to see the dead body of Raibari. Immediately, P. W. 2 and his wife, the P. W. 3, came to the house of the appellant and saw Raibari lying dead. P. W. 2 does not say about any confession made by the appellant in their house when the accused went there to call them. P. W. 3 in her evidence has stated that the appellant made the extra-judicial confession in her house while asking them to come to his house and see the dead body of Raibari. But P. W. 2 is silent about the confession. P. W. 3 in her evidence has stated that the appellant made the extra-judicial confession in her house while asking them to come to his house and see the dead body of Raibari. But P. W. 2 is silent about the confession. There is no other evidence to corroborate the version of P. W. 3 about the confession said to have been made in her house. The P. W. 3 has also been contradicted with her statement recorded under Section 161, Cr. P. C. where she did not state about the confession. Regarding the confession said to have been made by the appellant in his own house before the P. Ws. 2 and 3, the P. W. 2 has deposed that after coming to the house of the appellant on being asked the appellant told that he asked Raibari for money for taking liquor and when she did not give any money he killed her by means of an axe. From the evidence of P. W. 2, it appears that his wife P. W. 3 was also with him, but the P. W. 3 does not support the version of P. W. 2 relating to the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant in his own house. The P. W. 2 has also been confronted with his statement recorded under Section 161, Cr. P. C. where he did not state that the appellant confessed before them (P. Ws. 2 and 3) when they came to the house of the appellant. Attention of the Investigating Officer (P. W. 11) was also drawn to the statements. P. W. 1 in connection with the extra-judicial confession has stated that when he came to the house of the appellant being called by P. W. 2, the appellant being asked by him confessed to have killed Raibari by means of a stone being enraged by her refusal to give any money to purchase liquor. This witness has also been contradicted with his statement made to the police under Section 161, Cr. P. C. where he did not state that the appellant confessed before him that they appellant confessed before him that he assaulted Raibari by means of a stone. P. W. 2 in this context has stated that in his presence the appellant confessed his guilt before P. W. 1 stating that he killed the deceased by means of an axe. P. C. where he did not state that the appellant confessed before him that they appellant confessed before him that he assaulted Raibari by means of a stone. P. W. 2 in this context has stated that in his presence the appellant confessed his guilt before P. W. 1 stating that he killed the deceased by means of an axe. The P. W. 3 has simply stated that the appellant confessed his guilt. The P. W. 6 in this context has stated that the appellant told him that he killed his wife without mentioning about the weapon of offence used by him. All these witnesses have also been confronted with their statements recorded by the I. O. under Section 161, Cr. P. C. and the attention of the I. O. has also been drawn to the same. The evidence adduced by P. Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 6 are not in conformity about the exact words uttered by the appellant while making the alleged confession. From the evidence of P. W. 4 who is a police Constable, it appears that while he was in the Police Station the I. O. (P. W. 11) came to the Police Station with the appellant and at that time while the appellant was in custody he confessed to have killed his wife. This witness has also been contradicted with his previous statement where he did not state that the appellant made any extra-judicial confession before him. The evidence of P. W. 4 relating to the confession made by the appellant is also inadmissible as it appears that the alleged confession was made in presence of the I. O. From the discussion made above, it is clear that the evidence of P. Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 6 are not consistent and they vary from each other about the exact words uttered by the appellant while making the extra-judicial confession. Their evidence also differs from each other relating to the weapon, said to have been used by the appellant. The omissions made by the P. Ws. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 to state about the extra-judicial confession in their statement to the I. O. during investigation are vital omissions and as such the same amount to contradictions. Their evidence also differs from each other relating to the weapon, said to have been used by the appellant. The omissions made by the P. Ws. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 to state about the extra-judicial confession in their statement to the I. O. during investigation are vital omissions and as such the same amount to contradictions. In the above circumstances, no reliance can be placed on the evidence of those witnesses to come to a conclusion that the appellant made any extra-judicial confession before them. Therefore, the finding of the learned Additional Sessions Judge to the contrary cannot be sustained and no reliance can be placed on the evidence of these witnesses. ( 8 ) NOW coming to the recovery of blood stained Dhoti said to have been seized from the possession of the appellant it is noticed that there is no evidence of any other witness excepting P. Ws. 4, 8 and 11. P. Ws. 4 and 8 are two police Constables and the P. W. 11 is the Investigating Officer. From the evidence of these witnesses it appears that the said cloth was seized under Ext. 1. The P. W. 4 has clearly stated that in his presence the cloth of the deceased were seixed vide seizure list Ext. 1. P. W. 11 though has deposed that he seized the cloth from the possession of the accused he has not deposed in Court about the other particulars as to the place from where it was seized. The evidence P. W. 4 and the evidence of the I. O. (P. W. 11) contradicts each other. One says it is the cloth of the deceased and the other says it belongs to the appellant. P. W. 8, another police Constable says that the Dhoti stained with blood was seized on production by the appellant. But he is unable to say in what connection the said Dhoti was seized. From the evidence of P. Ws. 2 and 3 it appears that when they came to the house of the appellant to see the dead body they found the dead body covered with cloth. There is no evidence on record to show as to what happened to that cloth. That might be the cloth seized under Ext. 1. This fits in to the evidenceadduced by P. W. 4 who has deposed that the cloth seized under Ext. There is no evidence on record to show as to what happened to that cloth. That might be the cloth seized under Ext. 1. This fits in to the evidenceadduced by P. W. 4 who has deposed that the cloth seized under Ext. 1 was that of the deceased as well as to the evidence adduced by P. W. 8 who says that the cloth was seized on production by the appellant. None of the other witnesses has deposed to have seen the appellant wearing that cloth. None of them has also come forward to say that they saw any blood stains in the wearing apparels of the appellant in that night. In the above circumstances, it is difficult to hold that the Dhoti M. O. II (as deposed by P. W. 8) is seized from the appellant and as such the appellant cannot be linked with the alleged assault because of the presence of human blood stains on the said cloth. ( 9 ) COMING to the other circumstances, it is noticed that there is absolutely no evidence to show that the accused and the deceased quarrelled with each other in the night of occurrence. Of course in the F. I. R. it has been mentioned that in that night there was exchange of words between the appellant and his wife. But none of the prosecution witnesses not even the informant (P. W. 1), the father of the deceased, has whispered a word about the alteration in his testimony. On the other hand, the P. W. 1 in his testimony has stated "prior to the occurrence there was no dispute between Raibari and accused". The house of this witness is two houses apart from the house of the appellant as has been deposed by him. He has also deposed that he was regularly taking his meals in the house of the appellant. So, if there was any quarrel between the deceased and the appellant the same would not have escaped his notice. P. W. 5, who is a sister of the deceased and her husband, the P. W. 2 who are also co-villagers of the appellant have not also whispered a word about any altercation between the appellant and the deceased. P. Ws. 5 and 6, the other two co-villagers are also totally silent about the same. P. W. 5, who is a sister of the deceased and her husband, the P. W. 2 who are also co-villagers of the appellant have not also whispered a word about any altercation between the appellant and the deceased. P. Ws. 5 and 6, the other two co-villagers are also totally silent about the same. In the above premises, relying on the F. I. R. which is not a substantive piece of evidence no conclusion can be drawn that the appellant quarrelled with his wife in the night of occurrence. Hence, the finding of the learned Additional Sessions Judge to the contrary cannot be supported. ( 10 ) FROM the discussions made above, the appeal is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge is set aside. He is acquitted of the charge under Section 325, I. P. C. The appellant be set at liberty forthwith, if his detention is not required in connection with any other case. Appeal allowed. .