Judgment :- Rengasamy, J. This is appellant stands convicted by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Salem in S.C. No.32 of 1988 to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under Sec.302, I.P.C. 2. The prosecution rests upon the confession of the appellant corroborated by certain circumstances. The prosecution case in brief is as follows: The deceased Kadireasan and the appellant/ accused belonged to Navaladipatti Village within the police limits of Erumaipatti Police of Namakkal Taluk. The appellant had lost her husband some years ago and was living with her daughter P.W.4. The deceased had sold his house to the appellant for a sum of Rs.610 a few years before the occurrence and thereafter, he was living in the vacant site of his uncle, who is living in Ceylon. The deceased, who was looking after his uncle’s land, gave that land to the appellant for lease cultivation, receiving lease advance of Rs. 1,000. But one year before the occurrence, without repaying the advance amount to the appellant, he let out the land to P.W.5 on the annual lease of Rs.250 and thereafter, left for Kerala. Four days prior to the occurrence, he returned to Navaladipatti Village. He had illicit intimacy with the appellant from the previous years and after his return from Kerala, he approached the appellant for the sexual intercourse, but as the appellant had grievance against the deceased for his conduct of leasing his uncle’s land to P.W.4, she refused to accede. On 9. 1987 at about 4.00 p.m. the deceased was reviling appellant and her daughter, calling them as women of immoral character, having illicit intimacy with several persons. P.W.2, whose house is situated adjacent to the site in which the deceased had stayed, told him, not to use such filthy language when there are women folk around. But the deceased told him that if he was not able to tolerate, let him close his windows. Therefore, P.W.2 closed his windows to avoid the hearing of the filthy words On that night, the deceased entering into the house of the appellant, raped her and also bitten her private part. He also told her that she became old and she should provide her daughter Janaki for his sexual pleasure, otherwise he would do away with her. Thereafter, he returned and was sleeping in the vacant site. He also told her that she became old and she should provide her daughter Janaki for his sexual pleasure, otherwise he would do away with her. Thereafter, he returned and was sleeping in the vacant site. The appellant feeling that the deceased would spoil the life of her daughter also, thought of killing him and therefore by about 1.00 a.m. when the deceased was sleeping, she dropped the stones M.Os.1 to 3 on his head and also gave a blow with M.O.6 wooden stick on his face making him lifeless. She, thereafter, left the village. 3. Next day, P.Ws.2 and 3, who are living adjacently, saw the dead body of Kadireasan lying in the vacant site. P.W.1, the Village Administrative Officer P.W.1 came to see the dead body in the place where it was lying. He prepared a complaint Exhibit P. 1 and along with his report-Exhibit P.2 he sent it to Erumaipatti Police Station. 4. The Head Constable attached to Erumaipatti Police Station P.W.1 Registered the complaint in Crime No. 162 of 1987 under Sec.302, I.P.C. at 2.30 p.m. and prepared the F.I.R. Ex.P-22, which was forwarded to the Judicial Magistrate, Namakkal. The copies were sent to the higher police officials. The Inspector of Police, P.W.12, who received the message by about 3.30 p.m., came to the scene of occurrence and seized the three blood stained stones M.Os. 1 to 3, the blood stained mud M.O.4 and the sample mud M.O. 5 under mahazar Exhibit P.4. He prepared the observation mahazar Ex.P-3 in the presence of the Village Administrative Officer, P.W.1. He also prepared a rough sketch for the scene of occurrence Ex.P-23. He conducted the inquest in the presence of the Panchayatdars and prepared the inquest report, Ex.P-24. The body was entrusted with P.W.9 the Constable attached to Erumaipatti police station with direction to take it for post mortem. 5. P.W.12 sent the requisition Ex. P-15 to the Medical Officer attached to Namakkal Government hospital for conducting the autopsy on the body of the deceased. 6. P. W.7, the Medical Officer attached to the Government Hospital at Namakkal after receiving the requisition Ex.P-15 commenced the post mortem at 9.00 a.m. on 9. 1987. He found the following external injuries. 1. A lacerated depressed wound 4 cm. x 3 cm. 6. P. W.7, the Medical Officer attached to the Government Hospital at Namakkal after receiving the requisition Ex.P-15 commenced the post mortem at 9.00 a.m. on 9. 1987. He found the following external injuries. 1. A lacerated depressed wound 4 cm. x 3 cm. x bone deep over centre of face, depression extending from forehead to Maxilla below, the frontal skull bone, nasal bone. Both sides of orbits and both sides Maxilla are depressed with fracture. 2. A lacerated wound 5 cm. x 4 cm. x bone deep over right ear. Bleeding from right ear seen. 3. A lacerated wound 1 cm. x 1 cm. 1/2 cm. over anterior aspect of right knee. 4. Multiple small abrasions over right cheek and mandible. 5. An abrasion 2 cm. x 1 cm. over posterior aspect of right hand. 6. Multiple small abrasions over posterior aspect of right elbow. 7. An abrasion 1 cm. x 1/2 cm. over anterior aspect of right mid finger in distal phalanx. Internal examination revealed extravasation of blood beneath fracture site. Iwra cranial haemorrhage present. The Doctor was of opinion that the deceased should have died of shock and haemorrhage due to head injury about 30 to 40 hours prior to the post mortem. Ex.P-16 is the post-mortem certificate issued by the Doctor. After post-mortem P.W.9 handed over Mos.8 to 13 the bedsheet dhothi, half drawer. Towel, Full hand shirt, and the waist cord which were on the body, to the Station Officer. 7. P.W.12, the Inspector of Police, suspected the appellant as she was found absconding and he arrested her on 9. 1987 in Powthram weekly shandy in the main road leading to Thuraiyur. In the presence of P.W.1, the Village Administrative Officer the appellant on enquiry gave a statement, the admissible portion of which is marked as Ex.P-5, stating that she would produce the wooden stick. She took the Police Officer, Village Administrative Officer and others to Navaladipatti lake and underneath from a rock, she took out M.O.6 wooden stick. P.W.12 seized the same under mahazar Ex.P-6. He also seized the green coloured inskirt of the accused, M.O.7 under Ex.P-7 Mahazar in the presence of the Village Administrative Officer. As the appellant was prepared to confess the guilt, the Inspector of Police sent a requisition Ex.P-8 to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem to arrange for recording the confession of the appellant. He also seized the green coloured inskirt of the accused, M.O.7 under Ex.P-7 Mahazar in the presence of the Village Administrative Officer. As the appellant was prepared to confess the guilt, the Inspector of Police sent a requisition Ex.P-8 to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem to arrange for recording the confession of the appellant. The Chief Judicial Magistrate requested P.W.6, the Judicial Magistrate, Paramathi to record the confession of the appellant. P.W.6 addressed under Ex.P-9 to the Jail Authorities for production of the appellant before court and after sufficient warning P.W.6 recorded the confession statement of the appellant on 19. 1987. Ex.P-13 is the confession statement. P.W.6 issued a certificate Ex.P-14 for recording such confession. The Inspector of Police sent the requisition Ex.P-18 to the Judicial Magistrate, Namakkal, to cause sending of the seized materials for the forensic examination. The Judicial Magistrate sent the articles under the covering letter Ex.P-19. The forensic lab after examination of the articles, sent the forensic report Exhibit P.20 and the Serologist’s report Ex.P-21. The Inspector of Police P.W.12 after completing the investigation, filed up charge sheet against the appellant under Sec.302, I.P.C. 8. The Judicial II Class Magistrate; Namakkal committed the case to Court of Sessions and the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Salem, after the examination of the witnesses called upon the appellant to explain the incriminating circumstances found against her in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The appellant denied her complicity in the crime. She did not choose to examine any witness on her side. P.W.4 did not support the prosecution case and therefore, she was treated as hostile. 9. The learned Sessions Judge considering the evidence placed before him, has found that the prosecution has established the offence alleged against the appellant and therefore, found her guilty of the offence under Sec.302, I.P.C. and has imposed the life imprisonment as mentioned above. The appellant has come forward with this appeal, challenging the conviction and sentence imposed upon her. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant Mr. Kalyanaraman would contend that the lower court, solely depending upon the judicial confession made before P.W.6, has come to the conclusion that the crime alleged has been proved against the appellant and the other corroborative evidence referred to by the court below actually is not available and therefore, the conviction by the court below is not sustainable. .11. Kalyanaraman would contend that the lower court, solely depending upon the judicial confession made before P.W.6, has come to the conclusion that the crime alleged has been proved against the appellant and the other corroborative evidence referred to by the court below actually is not available and therefore, the conviction by the court below is not sustainable. .11. On a perusal of the judgment of the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, we find that apart from the confession of the appellant made before P.W.6, he has referred to certain other circumstances also to support the prosecution case. The important piece of evidence which the prosecution relied upon, viz., the recovery of M.O.6, bloodstained wooden stick has been discredited by the learned Sessions Judge and he has not acted upon this material. Even though the learned Public Prosecutor would argue that the rejection of this piece of evidence by the court below is not correct, the learned sessions Judge has pointed out that the evidence of P.W.1 for the recovery of this article is most unsatisfactory. Even though the confession statement Ex.P-5 does not contain either the signature or thumb impression of the appellant, P.W.1 would say that the appellant had signed the confession statement in his presence. He has further stated that the Sub Inspector of Police, Namakkal was also present at that time when the statement was recorded. Actually, the Sub Inspector of Police was on leave during that period and he was not present at the time of recording the statement Ex.P-5 as admitted by the Inspector of Police himself. Therefore, the lower court was perfectly correct in arriving at a conclusion that Ex.P-5 leading to the recovery of M.O.6 cannot be true. For these reasons we are not inclined to interfere with the findings of the learned Sessions Judge, disbelieving the recovery of M.O.6 at the instance of the appellant. Barring this piece of evidence, we find no other materials to corroborate the confession Ex.P-13. Even though the court below would rely upon the circumstances viz., the absconding of the appellant, as her house was found locked on the date of the occurrence, there is nothing to show that the appellant was present in the house before the occurrence. No one has spoken about the presence of the appellant in the house on the previous day evening. No one has spoken about the presence of the appellant in the house on the previous day evening. Even P.W.2, who has spoken about the reviling by the deceased at 4.00 p.m. on 9. 1987 did not say that the appellant was present in her house at that time. Therefore, there is possibility for the appellant leaving the village even before the occurrence also to attend her personal works. Therefore, the lower court is not justified in taking the circumstances, viz., the absence of the appellant in her house on 9. 1987. 12. The next circumstance relied upon by the court below is the enmity of the appellant with the deceased, as it is stated by P. W.5 that the deceased had previously leased the agricultural land to the appellant, but subsequently one year before this occurrence, this land was let out to him on an annual rent of Rs.250. The court below took the view that the appellant should have developed enmity against the deceased, as the deceased had leased out his land to P. W.5 even without returning the advance amount of Rs. 1,000 paid by her. But this is only a surmise by the lower court because even the appellant has not spoken in her confession statement that she caused the death of the deceased as he leased out the land to P.W.5 without returning the advance amount of Rs. 1,000 paid by her. When the prosecution itself has not relied upon this circumstances, viz., leasing out the land to P.W.5., the court below is not justified in drawing this as a circumstance for the cause of death. Therefore, these two circumstances, which according to the learned Sessions Judge are corroborative circumstances, cannot be accepted. .13. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.R.Ragupathi pointed out the medical evidence of P.W.8, who has mentioned that there were three scratches in the vaginal part of the appellant and as the appellant in her confession statement has stated that the deceased had bitten in her private part, the injuries found by the Doctor P.W.8 in the private part of the appellant is a corroborative circumstances. P.W.8, though would say that the three scratches found on the appellant could have been caused by the bitting, usually the injuries by biting would be in the crescent shape, whereas the injuries on the appellant were mere scratches, It could have been caused even by nails. In the cross-examination, P.W.8 has admitted that she did not find any symptoms for the biting with teeth. Therefore, this also cannot be a corroborate circumstance. 14. It is true that nothing has been brought out in the cross-examination to hold that the confession recorded P.W.6 is not voluntary. But for the sole reason that. That the confession was voluntary, it cannot be argued that it is sufficient and adequate for basing the conviction. 15. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.R.Raghupathi further argued that the Apex Court has held that even the uncorroborated extra-judicial confession can be acted upon to fasten the criminal liability of the accused and in this case the lower court had accepted that the confession made by the appellant was voluntary and therefore, there is nothing wrong in accepting the judicial confession for the basis of the conviction. No doubt in State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony, A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 48, the Supreme Court has held that when the evidence for the extra judicial confession is reliable arid trust worthy, conviction on that basis without any corroboration is proper. But, the extrajudicial confession cannot be equated with the judicial confession. The extra-judicial confession is made by a person, who is in freedom though he was in the apprehension of arrest. But, a judicial confession is made by a person, who was once in the custody of the police and thereafter, transferred to the judicial custody and there is every possibility for coercion and threatening. That is why for the judicial confession several safeguards have been provided like warning and also the time for reflection. But, a judicial confession is made by a person, who was once in the custody of the police and thereafter, transferred to the judicial custody and there is every possibility for coercion and threatening. That is why for the judicial confession several safeguards have been provided like warning and also the time for reflection. It is true in Ram Chandra v. State of Bihar, A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 349: 1967 Crl.L.J. 469: (1966)3 S.C.R. 517 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court, referred Pyaretal Bhargava v. State of Rajasthan A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 1094: (1964)2 Crl.L.J. 178, where it is pointed out that ordinarily corroboration is required for confession, it is not a rule of laws, but only a rule of prudence and it is not an inflexible rule of practice or prudence that in no circumstances such a conviction can be based without corroboration on a retracted confession, in the case cited Ram Chandra v. State of Bihar, A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 349, it was also a case of extra-judicial confession, the court had found other adequate materials apart from the extra-judicial confession of the appellant. Even though the view has been expressed by the Apex Court that conviction on the basis of the retracted confession is not bad in law, the other circumstances for corroboration are required not only as a rule of prudence but also to satisfy the conscience of the court, that there must be some move materials before the court to fasten the criminal liability of the accused. In this case, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor concedes certain infirmities even to support the confession statement. Even though the appellant in her confession states that she dropped a stone on the head of the deceased and gave a hit with M.O.6 wooden stick, as though she caused only two injuries on the deceased, the medical evidence reveals that the assailant should have caused more than two injuries on the deceased. There was as many as 7 injuries, Though the injury numbers 4 to 7 were abrasions, no explanation is available for the lacerated wound in the right knee. Some how the other injuries on the body of the deceased, are unexplained by the prosecution. 16. The next infirmity is the time of occurrence. The prosecution case is that the occurrence took place by 1.00 a.m. on 9. 1987. But the confession of the appellant is that on 9. Some how the other injuries on the body of the deceased, are unexplained by the prosecution. 16. The next infirmity is the time of occurrence. The prosecution case is that the occurrence took place by 1.00 a.m. on 9. 1987. But the confession of the appellant is that on 9. 1987 night the deceased entered into her house to sexually assault her, and by about 10.00 p.m. in the same night when the deceased was sleeping, she gave the blows on the deceased in the manner stated above. Therefore, there is vast difference as to the time of occurrence between the prosecution case and the confession statement of the accused. When such disparity is patent, we feel it is not safe to act upon the retracted uncorroborated confession statement of the appellant to fasten the guilt on the appellant under Sec.302 of the Penal Code. As we find no other material to support the prosecution case, we have to interfere with the findings of the court below, to set aside the same. 17. In the result, the conviction and sentence of the court below are set aside and the appellant is found not guilty of the offence charged and is acquitted thereof. The appeal is allowed.