JUDGMENT : Pasayat, J. - In this appeal from Jail, Dasa Marandi, the appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'accused') has assailed the legality of conviction recorded and sentence imposed under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'the I.P.C.') by learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada, for alleged fratricide. 2. In a nutshell, the prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows: Tiku Marandi (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') was the brother of accused Dasa Marandi. He developed illicit relationship with Goura Marandi (P.W.2) wife of the accused. On 7.7.1991, in the morning, accused and deceased were sitting on a cot in front of accused's house and drinking liquor. Suddenly, accused went inside, brought a long bladed axe and dealt several blows on the head and neck of the deceased, who tried to run inside accused's house to save himself. But near the door of the house he fell down. Villagers gathered at the spot and took accused to Bangriposi police station where a report was lodged, investigation was undertaken and on completion thereof charge-sheet was placed. 3. During trial, accused pleaded innocence. According to him, he was sleeping inside his house and when he came out in the morning, he found the deceased dead in front of his house. 4. Seven witnesses were examined by the prosecution to establish its accusations. Badra Mansada (P.W.1) claimed to be an eye witness to the occurrence. P.Ws.3 to 5 were co-villagers, who came to the spot immediately after the occurrence and before whom accused allegedly made confession to have killed the deceased. Reliance has been placed on the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3, accused was found guilty and convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. 5. Mrs. Pramila Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for accused submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish its case. P.W.1 evidence was attacked on the ground that the same was at variance with medical evidence. While this witness claimed to have witnessed three assaults, four injuries were noticed by the doctor (P.W.6) who conducted post-mortem. The retracted extra judicial confession could not have formed the basis for conviction. Evidence of P.Ws. 3 to 5 are at variance with the evidence of P.W.1. The extra-judicial confession allegedly to have been made before P.W.3 cannot be accepted, because he had a biased opinion against the accused. The retracted extra judicial confession could not have formed the basis for conviction. Evidence of P.Ws. 3 to 5 are at variance with the evidence of P.W.1. The extra-judicial confession allegedly to have been made before P.W.3 cannot be accepted, because he had a biased opinion against the accused. In this connection, it is pointed out that he was a member of the Panchayat where the question of illicit relationship between the deceased and P.W.2 was discussed. The investigation was defective, because wearing apparels of the accused were not seized and examined for blood stain; the weapon of offence was not seized for finger print of the accused; blood stain on the Cot on which the alleged crime took place was not collected and examined for human blood; the alleged eye witness was examined four days after the incident and P.W.3 before whom extra-judicial confession was made was examined 10 days after. It was also urged that exact words of alleged confession were not stated by P.W.3. 6. Mr. R.K. Patnaik, learned Addl. Standing Counsel supported the judgment of conviction and sentence. 7. So far as acceptability of P.W.1's evidence is concerned, it is to be noted that he is a co-villager and had no axe to grind with the accused. The stand that his evidence is at variance with the medical evidence has no corroding effect so far as acceptability of his testimony is concerned. He claimed to have seen three assaults on the head and neck of the deceased. The doctor has found incised wounds on the right parietal region, left side of the neck and on the left supra-scapular region. To that extent P.W.1's evidence is in conformity with the medical evidence. The question is presence of a fourth injury as noticed by the doctor. P.W.1 has stated about three assaults on the head and the neck. It is not the prosecution case that no other blow was given. Additionally, the medical evidence cannot be said to be at variance to the ocular testimony, as three injuries as the part of the body where P.W.1 claimed to have seen the assault did exist. P.W.1's evidence cannot be said to be locking credibility, and his evidence does not suffer from any infirmity. 8. The extra-judicial confession alleged to have been made before P.W.3 has been found to be credible by he learned trial Judge. P.W.1's evidence cannot be said to be locking credibility, and his evidence does not suffer from any infirmity. 8. The extra-judicial confession alleged to have been made before P.W.3 has been found to be credible by he learned trial Judge. It is wrong to start with the presumption that extra-judicial confession is a weak place of evidence. Where the confession is made voluntarily and is also found to be true, but is subsequently retracted by the accused, there is no legal bar on basing a conviction on such retracted confession. Retracted confession may form the legal basis of conviction if the Court is satisfied that it was true and was voluntarily made. The requirement for corroboration is a "rule of prudence and not a rule of law." The proper approach is to consider the confession as a whole on its merit and use it against maker thereof, if the Court unhesitatingly comes to the conclusion that it was made voluntarily, and the reasons for making the confession and its retraction must be weighed and if the retraction is found to be an after-thought, the retraction should not weigh with the Court. An extra-judicial confession, if voluntary and true and made in a fit state of mind, can be relied upon by the Court. The same is to be proved like any other fact. Where there is nothing to show that a witness had any motive to implicate the accused falsely, the evidence relating to extra-judicial confession can be relied upon. If the witness examined to prove such confession is found to be dependable and trustworthy, the extra-judicial confession alone can form the basis of conviction. In Narayan Singh and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1985 SC 1678 it was observed that it is not open to any Court to start with a presumption that extra-judicial confession is a weak type of evidence. It would depend on the ; nature of the circumstances, the time when the confession was made and the credibility of the witness who speaks to such a confession. Court has to find out whether the person who claims that a confession was made before him is a person on whom accused could repose confidence. It cannot be called a weak piece of evidence if it withstands the following tests:- (i) is the witness proving the confession generally credible? Court has to find out whether the person who claims that a confession was made before him is a person on whom accused could repose confidence. It cannot be called a weak piece of evidence if it withstands the following tests:- (i) is the witness proving the confession generally credible? (ii) is his relation with accused of such nature that the latter could confide in him? (iii) is there any motive for the witness to implicate the accused falsely (the witness might be trying to save himself or some one else by laying the blame on the accused) ? and (iv) is the confessional statement consistent with other facts and circumstances brought on record? Such confession can be relied upon and conviction can be founded thereon, if the evidence about the extra-judicial confession comes from the mouth of a witness, who appears to be unbiased, not even remotely inimical to the accused and in respect of whom nothing is brought-out which may tend to indicate that he may have a motive for attributing an untruthful statement to the accused the words spoken to by the witness are clear, unambiguous and unmistakably convey that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime and nothing is omitted by the witness which may militate against it, then after subjecting the evidence of the witness to a rigorous test on the touchstone of credibility, if it passes the test, the extra-judicial confession can be accepted and can be the basis of a conviction. The evidence furnished by the extra-judicial confession made by the accused to a witness or witnesses cannot be termed to be a tainted evidence and if corroboration is required it is only by way of abundant caution or prudence. If the Court believes the witness or witnesses before whom the confession is made and it is satisfied that the confession was voluntary, then in such a case conviction can be founded on such evidence alone. (See Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1954 SC 322 , Magher Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1975 SC 1320 ). The plea that exact words having not been indicated and therefore, the witness should not have been believed has no substance. The value of the evidence like any other evidence depends upon the veracity of the witness to whom it is made. The plea that exact words having not been indicated and therefore, the witness should not have been believed has no substance. The value of the evidence like any other evidence depends upon the veracity of the witness to whom it is made. It is true that the Court requires the witness to give the actual words used by the accused as nearly as possible, but it is not an invariable rule that the Court should not accept the evidence, if not the actual words but the substance were given. If the rule is inflexible that the Courts should insist only on the exact words more often as not this kind of evidence sometimes most reliable and useful will have to be excluded for except perhaps in the case of a person of good memory, many witnesses cannot repeat the exact words of the accused. It is for the Court having regard to the credibility of the witness to accept the evidence or not. (See Mulk Rai v. The State of U.P. AIR 1959 SC 902 ). 9. In the case at hand, P.W.3 is a co-villager, on whom the accused could repose confidence. The fact that he was a member of the Punch proves that he is a respected person of the locality. Merely because in the Punch there were some discussions about the illicit relationship between the wife of the accused (P.W.2) and the deceased, that cannot be a ground to believe that he had hostility towards the accused, or that he was prejudiced, or that he would falsely implicate the accused. The learned trial Judge was justified in placing reliance on judicial confession as stated by P.W.3. 10. Belated examination of P.Ws 1, 6, 3 during investigation was highlighted to attach vulnerability to their versions. Belated examination of vital witnesses is a relevant factor, and in certain cases casts doubt on the veracity of their version. But it cannot be laid down as a rule of universal application that whenever a person is examined after some length of time, his evidence is to be discarded. In the case at hand, the witnesses are rustic Adivasis. While considering the question of their delayed examination, their social background cannot be lost sight of. The complexities of modern life have not affected them. Simple at heart, such people normally avoid getting into police investigation. In the case at hand, the witnesses are rustic Adivasis. While considering the question of their delayed examination, their social background cannot be lost sight of. The complexities of modern life have not affected them. Simple at heart, such people normally avoid getting into police investigation. No question was asked to the Investigating Officer regarding the cause of delayed examination. Had that been, the Officer may have explained the reason for such delay. That having not been done, a belated place that the evidence is suspect and of no substance. 11. Another factor which is of significance is that the accused found his own brother lying dead in front of his house. He did not react in a manner, a person would have normally done. Unshaken version of P.Ws.1 and 3 to 5 to the effect that the deceased was lying partly inside the room and partly outside, belies the claim that accused saw it after coming out of the room. 12. The prosecution has established its case and the learned trial Judge was justified in holding the accused guilty. There is no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. S.C. Dutta, J. - I agree. Final Result : Dismissed