JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed by the accused - appellant against his conviction and sentence Under Section 302, Indian Penal Code for life for causing the murder of his wife Nenuri. The brief facts are that on 28.9.1984 a report was lodged in Police Station at about 12.30 p.m. at Thanwala (District Nagaur) by Ambadan PW 1 that Jetha Ram s/o Gopi Ram and his wife Nenuri who was not keeping well and as she was not seen in her house for last 3-4 days Ramji Ram, Pema Ram, Shaitan Singh, Man Singh and himself asked her husband Jetha Ram as to where she is. He informed that he had left her at Thanwala and, thereafter, he had left the village; yesterday again, enquiries were made about the whereabouts of his wife then he said that he has strangulated his wife and left her dead-body in a gunny bag and threw that in the well of Sumer Singh; we had kept surveillance at night on him but he left the village in the morning and disappeared. This way he has committed murder of his wife Nenuri and threw away the dead-body. On this the police made investigations. The accused-appellant was charged and tried for offences Under Sections 302 & 201, Indian Penal Code and was sentenced as above. 2. The learned Sessions Judge has relied upon the extrajudicial confession for convicting the accused-appellant. Thus it will be necessary for us to consider the evidence of extrajudicial confession and the medical evidence in minute details. The prosecution has examined PW 1 Ambadan, PW 2 Pema Ram, PW 4 Ramji Ram, PW 5 Man Singh and PW 9 Shaitan Singh to prove the fact that extrajudicial confession was made by the accused-appellant to these witnesses admitting his guilt. 3. PW 1 Ambadan has said that he had a talk with the accused 3-4 days before the date on which the dead-body was found and he informed him that his wife had gone to Thanwala. Again, he met the accused on 28th and he asked about the whereabouts of Nenuri on which the accused said that he had strangulated his wife and the dead-body has been thrown in the well of Sumar Singh. He had admitted that Nenuri was suffering from paralysis and that the relations of the deceased and the accused were cordial. 4. Again, he met the accused on 28th and he asked about the whereabouts of Nenuri on which the accused said that he had strangulated his wife and the dead-body has been thrown in the well of Sumar Singh. He had admitted that Nenuri was suffering from paralysis and that the relations of the deceased and the accused were cordial. 4. PW 2 Pema Ram said that the accused informed him that Nenuri had gone to Thanwala. 2-3 days thereafter he said to the accused that Nenuri is not at Thanwala. On that the accused said that he had thrown Nenuri into the well and she has died. He has admitted that Nenuri was suffering from asthma and paralysis for number of days. PW 4 Ramji Ram was declared hostile and he did not support the prosecution case. 5. PW 5 Man Singh has deposed that when he enquired from the accused about the whereabouts of his wife and why she was not seen in the village the accused stated that his wife was sent to Thanwala for treatment. After 2-3 days he again made enquiries and he was informed by the accused that he had killed Nenuri and thrown her dead-body in the well of Sumer Singh. He admitted that Nenuri was suffering from asthma and paralysis. 6. PW 9 Shaitan Singh has deposed that when the wife of the accused was not seen in the village there were some rumours afloat and, therefore, he alongwith Ramji Ram, Ambadan, and Pema Ram made enquiry and asked the accused that he should tell them what is the state of affairs and where is his wife as she is not at Thanwala. On that Jetha Ram told them that he had committed blunder. Then they again asked him about the truth as to what blunder he had committed. Thereupon, the accused told them that he had strangulated his wife and thrown the dead-body in the well of Sumer Singh. 7. It is admitted by these witnesses that Nenuri was ailing. The evidence of extrajudicial confession thus indicates that deceased Nenuri was killed by strangulation by the accused-appellant and her dead-body was thrown in the well of Sumer Singh. The prosecuiton has recorded the memorandum of the accused and has seized the dead-body from the well on the basis of the memorandum of the accused recorded Under section 27, Evidence Act. The evidence of extrajudicial confession thus indicates that deceased Nenuri was killed by strangulation by the accused-appellant and her dead-body was thrown in the well of Sumer Singh. The prosecuiton has recorded the memorandum of the accused and has seized the dead-body from the well on the basis of the memorandum of the accused recorded Under section 27, Evidence Act. However, this cannot be taken into consideration against accused-appellant inasmuch as the FIR lodged prior to it had already disclosed that the dead-body is lying in the well of Sumer Singh. 8. The post-mortem examination was conducted by Dr. Suresh Sharma PW 11 and the post mortem report is Ex. P /11. The dead-body was found with the following injuries "Wounds:-Abrasions around the angle of mouth present. Bruises:-Not noted. Marks of ligature:-No any ligature or impression of hand noted around the neck. Fracture:-5th, 6th rib on left side fractured. Remarks by Medical Officer:-In my opinion cause of death of deceased Smt. Nenuri w/o Jetha 50 years resident of Tehela is asphyxia due to suffocation." 9. As a rule of law there is no bar on convicting an accused merely on the basis of his confession made to the persons. The value attached to such evidence is just like any other evidence but it depends upon the veracity of the witnesses to whom it is made and, therefore, as a rule of prudence, the Court would insist upon some corroboration on material particulars. The case of the prosecution is based upon evidence only of extrajudicial confession. However, there are some inherent dangers as there is tendency of the witnesses to exaggerate and distort the version or to force a person to obtain the confession or to include one's own impression as to what has been said by the accused. 10. The cause of death suggested by the doctor was asphyxia due to suffocation. PW 11 Dr. Suresh Sharma has stated that the cause of death was asphyxia due to suffocation. He admitted that it was not a case of strangulation. He said that if there is an acute attack of asthma there can be death of the patient due to asphyxia.Thus from the doctor's statement the cause of death was not strangulation and it could be due to asthma. He admitted that it was not a case of strangulation. He said that if there is an acute attack of asthma there can be death of the patient due to asphyxia.Thus from the doctor's statement the cause of death was not strangulation and it could be due to asthma. The witnesses of extrajudicial confession have said that the accused told them that he had strangulated his wife and thereafter the dead-body was thrown in the well of Sumer Singh. The medical evidence does not support this that the death was caused by strangulation. Most of the witnesses examined by the prosecution to prove the extrajudicial confession have admitted that Nenuri was ailing from asthma and she was not well for last so many days. When the doctor has said that the death could have been on account of acute attack of asthma the medical evidence creates an element of doubt as to the cause of death inasmuch as Nenuri was admittedly patient of asthma. 11. We do not find independent corroboration for the confession made by the accused person to the witnesses examined by the prosecution admitting his guilt. On the contrary, the medical evidence shows that the death was not caused by strangulation. The doctor further states that suffocation and asphyxia could be due to acute attack of asthma from which the deceased was admittedly suffering. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt inasmuch as there is substantial contradiction between two reliance-worthy evidences-oral and medical; and, in the face of that, suggestion automatically springs that the accused-appellant may be a person who has not committed the murder. 12. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the accused-appellant is set aside. The accused-appellant is serving the sentence. He shall be set at liberty forthwith.Appeal allowed. *******