S. P. KHARE, J. ( 1 ) THE Judgment of the Court was delivered by Appellant Phool Sai has been convicted under Section 302 Indian Penal Code for committing murder of Deonarayan and sentenced to imprisonment for life. ( 2 ) IF is not in dispute that in the early hours of 2-7-1984 Deonarayan was found dead in the verandah of his house in village Makanpur, Police Station Pratappur District Ambikapur. There were three incised wounds on his body as per the post mortem report dated 3-7-1984, Ex. P/12. The first injury was just below the left mastoid process. It was brain deep. The second injury was on the left side of the neck. The third was on the back. He died on account of these injuries. His death was homicidal. ( 3 ) THE point for determination during the trial was whether the accused was the author of this crime. There was no eye-witness account of this incident. The prosecution case rested on circumstantial evidence and the extra-judicial confession made by the accused to Tejpal (PW 8 ). The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution were (a) previous enmity of the accused with Ramjatan (PW 4) (b) the accused was waiting for an opportunity to cause death of Ramjatan (PW 4) (c) the accused handed over a blood stained towel to Tejpal (PW 8) at the time of making extra-judicial confession, (d) the recovery of blood stained shirt and trouser from the acused, (e) the recovery of blood stained Tangi at the instance of the accused and (f) the conduct of the accused that he did not go to the house of Deonarayan after it came to the notice of the villagers that he was done to death. ( 4 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution the accused had been to the house of Deonarayan to cause death of Ramjatan (PW 4) but by mistake he caused the death of Deonarayan. The matter was reported to the police by Mohar Sai (PW 1), who is son-in-law of the deceased. ( 5 ) THE trial court placing reliance on the circumstantial evidence and the extra-judicial confession convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid. ( 6 ) IN this appeal it was argued on behalf of the appellant that the extra-judicial confession is not true and voluntary and the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are not established. ( 5 ) THE trial court placing reliance on the circumstantial evidence and the extra-judicial confession convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid. ( 6 ) IN this appeal it was argued on behalf of the appellant that the extra-judicial confession is not true and voluntary and the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are not established. It is, further, argued that the charge against the accused is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. ( 7 ) WE have scrutinised the evidence available on record. First of all we will deal with the extra judicial confession which is said to have been made by the accused to Tejpal (PW 8 ). He has deposed that he was salesman in Pratappur Co-operative Society. He was returning from the office of the Society and accused Phool Sai met him near the cycle shop of Kutu. The accused disclosed to him, "i have caused the death of Jatan Panika. " At the same time the accused handed over to him a towel and asked him to give it to the inmates of his house. The witness has further stated that he came to village Karsi and there he came to know that Deonarayan, who was also known as 'mafaulia Karnwar', had been done to death. He saw the towel, which the accused had given him closely and found blood stains thereon. This towel was subsequently seized from him by the police as per seizure memo Ex. P/8. That towel is article 'b'. In cross-examination he stated that he has purchased some land from the family members of the accused. He has denied the suggestion that there was any dispute with the accused on that account. He has further stated that there was some altercation between him and the accused long after this incident over a goat. Therefore, this incident does not diminish the veracity of the witness. The confession was made to him on the date of incident itself, i. e. on 2-7-1984. ( 8 ) N. S. Bains (PW 10) is the Sub-Inspector of Police. He has deposed that he had recorded the statement of Tejpal (PW 8) on 2-7-1984 and on the same date he had seized the towel article 'b' from him. ( 9 ) THE evidence relating to the extra judicial confession made by the accused to Tejpal (PW 8) is reliable. The confession was true and voluntary. He has deposed that he had recorded the statement of Tejpal (PW 8) on 2-7-1984 and on the same date he had seized the towel article 'b' from him. ( 9 ) THE evidence relating to the extra judicial confession made by the accused to Tejpal (PW 8) is reliable. The confession was true and voluntary. This extra judicial confession can form the basis of conviction. The Supreme Court has laid down in State of U. P. v. M. K. Anthony, 1985 Cri LJ 493 : AIR 1985 SC 48 , that there is neither any rule of law nor of prudence that evidence furnished by extra judicial confession cannot be relied upon unless corroborated by some other credible evidence. If the evidence about extra judicial confession comes from the mouth of witness/witnesses who appeal 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. In such a situation to go in search of corroboration itself tends to cast a shadow of doubt over the evidence. If the evidence of extra judicial confession is reliable, trustworthy and beyond reproach the same can be relied upon and a conviction can be founded thereon. Again in Kishore Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1990 SC 2140 : (1990 Cri LJ 2289), the Supreme Court observed that an unambiguous extra judicial confession possesses high probative force as it emanates from the person who committed the crime and in admissible in evidence provided it is free from suspicion and suggestion of its falsity. Again in Kishore Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1990 SC 2140 : (1990 Cri LJ 2289), the Supreme Court observed that an unambiguous extra judicial confession possesses high probative force as it emanates from the person who committed the crime and in admissible in evidence provided it is free from suspicion and suggestion of its falsity. But in the process of the proof of the alleged confession the Court has to be satisfied that it is a voluntary one and does not appear to be the result of inducement threat or promise envisaged under S. 24 of the Evidence Act or was brought about in suspicious circumstances to circumbent Ss. 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, the Court has to look into the surrounding circumstances and to find whether the extra judicial confession is not inspired by any improper or collateral consideration or circumvention of the law suggesting that it may not be true one. For this purpose the Court must scrutinise all the relevant facts such as the person to whom the confession is made, the time and place of making it, the circumstances in which it was made and finally the actual words used by the accused. Extra judicial confession if found to be voluntary can be relied upon by the Court along with other evidence on records. Therefore, even the extra judicial confession will also have to be proved like any other fact. The value of the evidence as to the confession depends upon the veracity of the witness to whom it is made and the circumstances in which it came to be made and the actual words used by the accused. ( 10 ) THE accused handed over the towel article 'b' to Tejpal (PW 8) and he in his turn gave it to the Police Sub-Inspector. This towel was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory as per evidence of N. S. Bains (PW 10 ). It had been sealed at the time of its seizure. As per report of the Forensic Science Laboratory Ex. P/25 there were blood stains on this towel. As per the report of Serologist Ex. P/26 the origin of the blood on this towel could not be determined as the blood stains had disintegrated. It had been sealed at the time of its seizure. As per report of the Forensic Science Laboratory Ex. P/25 there were blood stains on this towel. As per the report of Serologist Ex. P/26 the origin of the blood on this towel could not be determined as the blood stains had disintegrated. Even so the possession of blood stained towel by the accused while he was making the extra judicial confession to Tejpal (PW 8) and the delivery of the towel to this witness are corroborative of the evidence of the extra judicial confession made by the accused. The accused not only uttered the words confessing the guilt but by his over act in handing over the blood stained towel to the witness he assured him that the words of his mouth were true. The trial Court has rightly relied upon the extra judicial confession of the accused coupled with the circumstance of the blood stained towel in his possession shortly after the incident. ( 11 ) IT is admitted by the accused that there was enmity between him and Ramjatan (PW 4 ). There was litigation between them relating to some land. The accused was dispossessed of that land through the process of law as per documents Ex. P/10 and Ex. P/11. Thus the accused had the motive to cause the death of Ramjatan (PW 4 ). ( 12 ) IT is further found on the basis of the evidence that the accused knew that Ramjatan (PW 4) was entangled with the wife of Deonarayan and Ramjatan used to go to his house and sometimes spent the night there. In the evening preceding the night of the incident the accused had seen Ramjatan (PW 4) going to the house of Deonarayan. On that night Ramjatan (PW 4) and Serojini Bai (PW 5), wife of Deonarayan, were not in house but they were in the neighbouring house of the mother of Sarojini Bai (PW 5 ). ( 13 ) N. S. Bains (PW 10), Police Sub-Inspector, has further deposed that on 3-7-1984 he interrogated the accused and seized from his person the shirt and the trouser, article 'c' and 'd', as per seizure memo Ex. P/7. This has also been testified by Mohar Sai (PW 1 ). ( 13 ) N. S. Bains (PW 10), Police Sub-Inspector, has further deposed that on 3-7-1984 he interrogated the accused and seized from his person the shirt and the trouser, article 'c' and 'd', as per seizure memo Ex. P/7. This has also been testified by Mohar Sai (PW 1 ). The Sub-Inspector has further stated that the accused disclosed to him that he has kept the Tangi in Tukdar forest near the road. His statement is Ex. P/5. The accused led him to the place where this tangi was hidden. The accused took it out and produced it before the police. That was seized as per seizure memo Ex. P/6. Mohar Sai (PW 1) has corroborated the testimony of the Sub-Inspector regarding the recovery of this tangi. That has been marked as article 'a'. ( 14 ) THIS tangi as per report of the Forensic Science Laboratory was found stained with blood. The accused has admitted in his examination under Section 313, Cr. P. C. that he did not go to the house of Deonarayan after hearing that he had been murdered. That shows the conduct of the accused. ( 15 ) FROM the extra judicial confession and the circumstantial evidence discussed above it is established that the accused caused the death of Deonarayan under a mistaken impression that the person sleeping in the verandah was Ramjatan (PW 4 ). As per Section 301, I. P. C. the accused would be held guilty even if he committed the murder of Deonarayan by mistake. The doctrine of 'transfer of malice' or transmigration of motive' has been incorporated in this section Shankarlal Kacharabhai v. The State of Gujarat, 1965 (2) Cri LJ 266 : AIR 1965 SC 1260 . ( 16 ) THE findings of the Trial Court are based on evidence and we also find on the basis of the independent scrutiny of the evidence on record that offence under Section 302, I. P. C. is brought home to the accused. ( 17 ) IN the result this appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. .