JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 19th Sept. 1994 of Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar in Sessions Case No. 40 of 1993, whereby the appellant was convicted under section 302 and 328 IPC. Under Section 302 IPC he was awarded imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo six months simple imprisonment. Under Section 328 IPC. He was awarded three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo three months' simple imprisonment. 2. The facts of the case are that PW 7 Chandraram, father of the deceased Harlal, made a written report at Police Station Laxmangarh, District Sikar, whereupon crime No. 11/1991 was registered on 26.1.1991. In the report it was stated by him that his son Harlal was married with Smt. Bimla, daughter of the appellant Jawahar Singh and from their wedlock they had a son aged 3 years. That, when he (complainant) was going to his village Bhoma-Bada Via Sikar he came to know that his son Harlal has died in the Hospital at Sikar where he was admitted. On reaching at Hospital he found that Inquest-Report of dead-body of his son was being prepared. It was also stated in the report that when he returned home he came to know that his daughter-in-law, Smt. Bimla was taken to village Yalsar by her brother Kailash and he has apprehension that some poisoneous matter was administered to his son by the appellant his wife or daughter. 3. After registration of case, the police investigated the matter. Inquest-Report (Ex.P 10) of the dead-body was prepared in presence of PW 8 Rameshwar, PW 9 Girdhari Singh and PW 17 Ramdeo and post-mortem of the dead body was conducted Dr. B.L. Jangid, who reserved his opinion about cause of death till receipt of the report of chemical examination of viscera. Report of the FSL showed positive presence of Aluminium phosphide and, thereafter, final opinion was given by the doctor vide endorsement Ex.P 21 to the effect that Harlal died due to poisoning. 4. After completion of usual investigation, the police submitted a charge-sheet against the appellant before the concerned Magistrate. After commitment he was tried for the offences under sections 302 and 328 IPC in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar. 4. After completion of usual investigation, the police submitted a charge-sheet against the appellant before the concerned Magistrate. After commitment he was tried for the offences under sections 302 and 328 IPC in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar. During trial prosecution examined 25 witnesses for seeking conviction of the appellant. The plea of the accused appellant was of denial and he examined no witness in defence. 5. The learned trial court convicted the appellant mainly on the evidence of extra-judicial confession of the appellant alleged to have been made before the witnesses, namely PW 7 Chandra Ram, PW 8 Rameshwar, PW 16 Sultan Singh and PW 17 Ramdeo. Other circumstances relied against the appellant are that he was trying to escape and remained roaming here and there which showed his guilty mind and that an empty bottle was recovered at his instance from an open field adjoining to his house. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor we find that the fate of this appeal rests on the evidence of extra-judicial confession. If this evidence is believed, his conviction is sustainable otherwise there remains no other evidence to connect him with the crime. 7. At the outset, it may be said that evidence of extra-judicial confession, by its very nature, is of weak type. Before relying on such evidence the court should be satisfied that the alleged extra-judicial confession is specific and contains actual words and that there should be reasons for reposing confidence in the persons before whom the accused makes extra-judicial confession. 8. In the instant case we minutely examined the statements of PW 7 Chandra Ram, PW 8 Rameshwar, PW 9 Girdhari-Singh, PW 16 Sultan Singh and PW 17 Ramdeo. After giving deep consideration to their evidence we find that their evidence regarding extra-judicial confession is quite vague, and the same is not reliable. The statements of the aforesaid witnesses do not suggest that the appellant made disclosure of his guilt in specific terms. Even the statements are taken on their face value, at the most, they indicate that some poisonous matter might have been given to the deceased by the women folk. PW 7 Chandra Ram is father of the deceased. The statements of the aforesaid witnesses do not suggest that the appellant made disclosure of his guilt in specific terms. Even the statements are taken on their face value, at the most, they indicate that some poisonous matter might have been given to the deceased by the women folk. PW 7 Chandra Ram is father of the deceased. He made FIR at 9.55 p.m. on 26.1.1991, but the FIR is conspicuously silent about the alleged extra-judicial confession by the appellant which is stated to have been made earlier to the lodging of the report. Similarly, PW 8, PW 9 and PW 17 are the witnesses of Inquest-Report, but they also did not disclose about the extra judicial confession when Inquest Report Ex.P 10 was prepared. We are also unable to appreciate that there was any ground for the appellant to have made extra judicial confession before the aforesaid witnesses who belonged to opposite party. In our considered view the learned trial court committed serious error in placing reliance this evidence. 9. In a case where the accused is charged to have administered poison to the deceased, the court must carefully scan the evidence and determine the four important circumstances which alone can justify the conviction, which are as under (i) There is a clear motive for an accused to administer poison to the deceased; (ii) the deceased died of poison said to have been administered; (iii) the accused had the poison in his possession; and (iv) that he had an opportunity to administer the poison to the deceased. 10. In the instant case only one ingredient has been proved by the prosecution. The fact of Harlal's death by administering aluminium phosphide is proved but other three ingredients are completely missing and no attempt was made by the prosecution to prove them. 11. Consequently, we are inclined to allow this appeal and it is hereby allowed. The conviction and sentence passed against the appellant for the offences under sections 302 and 328 IPC are set aside. He is acquitted of all the charges. He is in Jail and shall be released forthwith if not wanted" in any other case. *******