Santhosh, J.:- The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 430 of 1965 was accused 1 in Sessions Case No. 5 of 1965 in the Court of the Sessions, Kolar. Appellants 1 and 2 in Criminal Appeal No. 373 of 1965 were accused 2 and 3 in the same Sessions trial. For the sake of convenience, in this appeal, the appellants will be referred to by their rank as accused in the Sessions Court. Accused 1 has been convicted of an offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life. Accused 2 and 3 have been convicted of an offence under section 302 read with section 109 of the Indian Penal Code and they have also been sentenced to imprisonment for life. In these appeals, they question the legality and correctness of the said convictions and sentences passed on them by the learned Sessions Judge. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is as follows: Accused 3 Chinnamma is the daughter of accused 2 Guramma. Accused 3 was the wife of the deceased Erappa. Accused 1 Narasimhadu was a family friend. The prosecution case is that deceased Erappa was keeping one Muniyamma and was spending all his earnings on her and was not looking after his own family. He completely neglected accused 2 and 3 and was not even maintaining them. Whenever accused 2 and 3 questioned him, he used to beat them. Deceased Erappa had made the lives of accused 2 and 3 most unhappy and miserable. Accused 2 and 3, being disgusted with the conduct of the deceased, wanted to do away with him. For achieving this object, they sought the services of accused 1 Narasimhadu with whom they were friendly. They promised to pay accused 1 Rs. 30 for murdering the deceased. On 11th February, 1965, accused 2 gave a bottle containing folidol to accused 1 to be administered to the deceased. The prosecution case is, the same day at about 6-30 p.m. accused 1 took deceased Erappa with him on the pretext that he would get him fuel. Thereafter, accused 1, accompanied by the deceased, went to the shop of P.W. 7 Patalappa and purchased two buns, some beedies, betel leaves, etc. Near a mori which is close to P.W. 5 Akkayyamma’s Mutt, accused 1 poured some folidol on one of the buns and gave the same to the deceased for eating. Thereafter, accused 1, accompanied by the deceased, went to the shop of P.W. 7 Patalappa and purchased two buns, some beedies, betel leaves, etc. Near a mori which is close to P.W. 5 Akkayyamma’s Mutt, accused 1 poured some folidol on one of the buns and gave the same to the deceased for eating. After eating the bun, the deceased complained of severe irritation of the stomach and fell down unconscious and was rolling on the ground struggling for life. Just then, P.W. 5 Akkayyamma, a Sanyasin living in the Mutt, attracted by the noise came there. She saw the deceased lying on the ground struggling for life and accused 1 standing near him. P.W. 5 Akkayyamma asked accused 1 as to who the other person was and why he was so struggling. Accused 1 pleaded ignorance and told her that he was unacquainted with the struggling man. But as P.W. 5 had seen him before in the company of the deceased, her suspicion was aroused. She asked accused 1 to accompany her to the house of P.W. 9 Chinnanarayanaswamy, which is close by P.W. 9 Chinnanarayanaswamy came to the place and identified the struggling person whom he knew, as Erappa. Shortly thereafter, Erappa died. Asking accused 1 to stay there with Akkayyamma, P.W. 9 went to Voddarapalya and informed P.W. 10 Nadiapanna, father of the deceased. Then the body of Erappa was brought to his house at Voddarapalya. On the next morning, i.e., 12th February, 1965, P.W. 10 Nadiappanna sent for some elders of the village, namely, P.W. 6 Sriramalu, P.W. 8 Shanbhoge Rama Rao and others and told them that accused 1 had taken Erappa the previous evening with him and asked them to question accused 1, as to how the deceased met with his death. When the elders questioned accused 1, he made a clean breast of the whole affair. Accused 1 told them that at the instigation of accused 2 and 3 he had poured folidol in a bun and given it to the deceased. When accused 2 and 3 who were there, were also questioned by these persons, they admitted that they had instigated accused 1 to kill the deceased Erappa and for that purpose, accused 2 had given accused 1 a bottle containing folidol. When accused 2 and 3 who were there, were also questioned by these persons, they admitted that they had instigated accused 1 to kill the deceased Erappa and for that purpose, accused 2 had given accused 1 a bottle containing folidol. Thereafter at the request of P.W. 10 Nadiappanna, father of the deceased, P.W. 8 Shanbhoge Rama Rao wrote a report, Exhibit, P-6 and sent the same to Chickballapur Police Station. P.W. 12 Sub-Inspector. Ananthan registered a case and after sending the necessary reports, arrived at the scene at 3 p.m. He arrested accused 1 to 3 who were near the dead body. He commenced inquest proceedings over the dead body and during the inquest, on interrogation, accused 1 made a statement as per Exhibit P-8 and volunteered to produce the folidol bottle which had been kept concealed between two cement concrete pillars near the scene of occurrence. Accused 1 thereafter led the Panchas and the Sub-Inspector to the place near Akkayyamma’s Mutt and took out and produced a folidol bottle, M.O. 6, kept concealed in between the two cement concrete pillars which were lying on the ground. M.O. 6 was seized under the Mahazer, Exhibit P-4. The Sub-Inspector thereafter, continued the inquest proceedings and recorded the statements of P.W. 5 Akkayyamma, P.W. 6 Sriramalu, P.W. 7 Patalappa, P.W. 8 Rama Rao, P.W. 9 Chinnanarayanaswamy, P.W. 10 Nadiappanna and others. Then, the Sub-Inspector sent the dead body for postmortem examination to the Doctor at Chikkaballapur. Thereafter, P.W. 13 Circle Inspector, Kishansingh took over the further investigation. After completing the investigation, he laid a charge-sheet against the accused in the Court of the Special First-Class Magistrate, Chickballapur. After conducting the preliminary enquiry, the learned Magistrate committed the accused for trial to the Court of Sessions at Kolar. The prosecution examined 13 witnesses in support of the charge against the accused. The accused did not examine any witness on their behalf. Their plea was one of total denial. Sri Jagannath, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, has not disputed before us that Erappa met with his death on the night in question as a result of folidol poisoning. P.W. 1 Dr. Chowdareddy conducted the post-mortem examination on the body of Erappa on 13th February, 1965, at about 11 a.m. The Doctor has noted in Exhibit P-1 post-mortem certificate, the condition of the body and the injuries found thereon. P.W. 1 Dr. Chowdareddy conducted the post-mortem examination on the body of Erappa on 13th February, 1965, at about 11 a.m. The Doctor has noted in Exhibit P-1 post-mortem certificate, the condition of the body and the injuries found thereon. The Doctor found one irregular depressed mark 1" above the cavital joint of length 4½" X 1½" and the surrounding part was congested. After cutting the wound and on dissection, the doctor found congestion of the underlying tissues as well as the margins of the wound. Injury No. 2 was a swelling of the left side of the face including the eye ball. Upper eye lid was more swollen and reddish than the lower eye lid. On dissection, the Doctor noticed the following symptoms: The brain, the membranes and sheath were congested. Larynx and trachea were congested. Right and left lungs were odetematous and congested. Mouth, farynx and oesophagus were congested. Liver, spleen and kidneys were also congested. The Doctor sent the viscera in two bottles to the Chemical Examiner for analysis. The Doctor reserved his opinion as to the cause of death, awaiting the report of the Chemical Examiner. After the receipt of the Chemical Examiner’s report, the Doctor opined that the death was due to administering nitrophenol derivative. The doctor stated that folidol is a derivative of nitrophenol; folidol is a deadly poison and if half an ozs. of folidol is given to a person, it is likely to cause death. Injury No. 1 could be caused by pressing with a bamboo. Injury No. 2 could be caused by hitting or when a person while rolling on the ground comes in contact with a rough substance. As there was general congestion of the viscera, the Doctor opined that it was a case of poisoning. The evidence given by the Doctor has not been shaken in cross-examination. P.W. 1 sent to the Chemical Examiner the liver, spleen, kidneys, large and small intestines and the stomach and its contents for examination. M.O. 6 bottle was also sent to the Chemical Examiner for analysis. Exhibit P-10 is the report of the Chemical Examiner. The Chemical Examiner detected the presence of nitrophenol derivative (presumably an insecticide containing parathion) in the articles referred to above which were sent to him. M.O. 6 bottle was also sent to the Chemical Examiner for analysis. Exhibit P-10 is the report of the Chemical Examiner. The Chemical Examiner detected the presence of nitrophenol derivative (presumably an insecticide containing parathion) in the articles referred to above which were sent to him. There is, therefore, no doubt, and the same is not disputed before us, that Erappa met with his death as a result of folidol poisoning. But the important question for consideration is whether accused 1 administered the poison to Erappa at the instigation of accused 2 and 3. The evidence against accused 1 consists of the following: (1) Evidence of P.W. 1 Patalappa that he saw deceased Erappa in the company of accused 1 at about 8 or 8-30 p.m. on the night of occurrence; (2) Evidence of P.W. 5 Akkayyamma that she saw accused 1 that night standing near the deceased while he lay struggling, near the Mutt; (3) Extra-judicial confession made by accused 1 in the presence of P.W. 6 Sriramalu, P.W. 8 Rama Rao, P.W. 9 Chinnanarayanaswamy and P.W. 10 Nadiapanna; (4) Recovery of M.O. 6, folidol bottle on the information furnished by accused 1. The evidence against accused 2 and 3 consists of the following: (1) Evidence of motive spoken to by P.W. 10 Nadiapanna and P.W. 11 Kondappa; (2) Extrajudicial confession made by accused 2 and 3 in the presence of P.Ws. 6, 8, 9 and 10; (3) Extra-judicial confession made by accused 1 implicating accused 2 and 3 which may be taken into consideration against them under section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act. Taking first the case against accused 1 P.W. 7 Patalappa, who runs a shop at Avalgurki, has stated that on a Thursday, at about 8 or 8-30 p.m. accused 1 and deceased Erappa came to his shop. Accused 1 purchased two buns, some beedies and betel leaves. After making the purchase, they went together. The evidence of this witness has not been shaken in cross-examination. He is an independent witness and there is absolutely no reason why he should come and depose falsely against accused 1. His shop is very close to the Mutt where Erappa met with his death. Accused 1, in his extra-judicial confession, has stated that he went with the deceased and purchased buns, beedies and betel leaves from P.W. 7 Patalappa’s shop. His shop is very close to the Mutt where Erappa met with his death. Accused 1, in his extra-judicial confession, has stated that he went with the deceased and purchased buns, beedies and betel leaves from P.W. 7 Patalappa’s shop. There is no reason to reject the evidence of P.W. 7. P.W. 5 Akkayyamma is a Sanyasin, residing in a Mutt. She has been living in the said Mutt for 14 years. She has stated that on the night in question at about 8-30 p.m. she came out attracted by some noise. She found a person struggling for life on the ground. Accused 1 was standing near him. She asked accused 1 why the other person was struggling. Accused 1 told her that he did not know who that person was and why he was struggling. But she told accused 1 that she had seen him before in the company of the struggling person and asked why he was pretending not to know him. She asked accused 1 to accompany her to fetch P.W. 9 Chinnanarayanaswamy, who was living closeby. P.W. 9 Chinnanarayanaswamy came there and identified the person as Erappa of Voddarapalya. He asked accused 1 to remain in the Mutt and went to fetch P.W. 10 Nadiapanna, father of the deceased Erappa. The evidence of P.W. 5 has not at all been seriously challenged in cross-examination. P.W. 5 Akkayyamma is a Sanyasin who has renounced the world and is living in the Mutt. There is absolutely no reason why she should come and depose falsely against accused 1. P.W. 9 Chinnanarayanaswamy has corroborated the evidence of P.W. 5 Akkayyamma that on the night in question, she and accused 1 came and took him to the Mutt, where he found Erappa lying dead. Accused 1 has himself stated in the extra-judicial confession that when the. deceased fell near the Mantap, P.W. 5 Akkayyamma came and questioned him. When questioned under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, accused 1 admitted that when he come near the Mantap, Akkayyamma questioned him about the person struggling for life. His version is that the man was struggling for life and P.W. 5 was there and that he happened to go there accidentally and Akkayyama questioned him as to who the struggling person was. His version is that the man was struggling for life and P.W. 5 was there and that he happened to go there accidentally and Akkayyama questioned him as to who the struggling person was. It may be pointed out that when Akkayyammi was in the box, no such suggestion was made to her in cross-examination. In the first information Exhibit P-6 given at the earliest possible time, there is specific mention of P.W. 5 Akkayyamma finding accused 1 standing near the body of Erappa. It may also be mentioned that P.W. 5 Akkayyamma was examined at the inquest itself. We have no hesitation in accepting the evidence of P.W. 5 Akkayamma. As stated already P.W. 7 Sriramalu, P.W. 8 Shanbhoge Rama Rao, P.W. 9 Chinnanarayanaswamy and P.W. 10 Nadiapanna have spoken to the extra-judicial confession made by accused 1. P.W. 6 Sriramalu has stated that on the morning of 12th February, 1965, P.W. 10 Nadiapanna, father of the deceased, told them that accused 1 had taken his son Erappa on the previous evening and thereafter Erappa was found dead near Akkayyamma’s Mutt. He and Shanbhoge Rama Rao questioned accused 1 as to what the matter was. Then accused 1 told them that accused 2 and 3 were instigating him to murder Erappa and that they had promised to pay him Rs. 30 in case he committed the murder of Erappa and accused 2 gave him a bottle containing folidol. The same evening at about 6 or 6-30 p.m. he took the deceased Erappa and purchased two buns and some beedies at P.W. 7 Patalappa’s shop. Thereafter, he and the deceased sat near Akkayyamma’s Mutt and without the knowledge of the deceased, he poured folidal to one of the buns and gave that bun to the deceased to eat. After eating the bun, the deceased told him that he was feeling some irritation in his stomach. Thereafter the deceased fell down in the Mantap. While he was about to leave the place, P.W. 5 Akkayyamma came there and questioned him. She asked him to accompany her to P.W. 9 Chinnanarayanaswamy’s place. P.W. 8 Shanbhoge Rama Rao, P.W. 9 Chinnanarayanaswamy and P.W. 10 Nadiapanna have corroborated the evidence of P.W. 6 about this extra- judicial confession made by accused 1 to them. While he was about to leave the place, P.W. 5 Akkayyamma came there and questioned him. She asked him to accompany her to P.W. 9 Chinnanarayanaswamy’s place. P.W. 8 Shanbhoge Rama Rao, P.W. 9 Chinnanarayanaswamy and P.W. 10 Nadiapanna have corroborated the evidence of P.W. 6 about this extra- judicial confession made by accused 1 to them. P.W. 5 Akkayyamma, P.W. 6 Sriramalu, P.W. 8 Rama Rao, and P.W. 9 Chinnanarayanaswamy are all totally independent witnesses, not in any way connected either with the accused or the deceased. These witnesses have no ill-will or motive to depose against the accused and there is absolutely no reason why they should depose falsely against the accused. Exhibit P-6, the first information, specifically refers to the extra-judicial confession made by accused 1 to these witnesses. All these witnesses were examined at the earliest possible time at the inquest. The learned Sessions Judge who had the benefit of seeing these witnesses in the box has believed their evidence. No case has been made out as to why we should reject their evidence. These are not persons in authority. The evidence does not disclose that they held out any inducement, threat or promise to the accused to make the confession before them. We are satisfied that the confession made by accused 1 is not only voluntary but also true. We have no hesitation in accepting the evidence of these witnesses that accused 1 made before them, the extra-judicial confession, as stated by them. P.W. 6 Sriramalu, P.W. 8 Rama Rao and P.W. 9 Chinnanarayanaswamy along with P.W. 12 Sub-Inspector Ananthan have given evidence about the recovery of M.O. 6 folidol bottle on the information furnished by accused 1. The evidence of these witnesses discloses that when P.W. 12 Sub-Inspector questioned accused 1, he made a statement (Exhibit P-8) that he would produce the folidol bottle which he had concealed between reinforced cement concrete poles. Thereafter, accused 1 took them near Akkayyamama’s Mutta and produced the bottle, M.O. 6 which had been kept concealed between two cement concrete pillars. The said bottle (M.O. 6) was seized and sealed under the panchanama, Exhibit P-4. We have already accepted the evidence of P.Ws. 6, 8 and 9 as they are totally independent and disinterested witnesses. Thereafter, accused 1 took them near Akkayyamama’s Mutta and produced the bottle, M.O. 6 which had been kept concealed between two cement concrete pillars. The said bottle (M.O. 6) was seized and sealed under the panchanama, Exhibit P-4. We have already accepted the evidence of P.Ws. 6, 8 and 9 as they are totally independent and disinterested witnesses. Sri Jagannath, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, has argued that the evidence discloses that accused 1, throughout the night, continued to be near the body of Erappa and did not run away. He contends that the conduct of accused 1 shows that he is really innocent. He submits that there was no recovery of the bottle, M.O. 6, on the information furnished by accused 1. Accused 1 had no time at all to go to some distance and hide the bottle as he continued to be throughout in the company of P.W. 5 Akkayyamma and the other witnesses. There is no force in these contentions advanced by Sri Jagannath. Accused 1 did not run away from the scene of occurrence for the obvious reason that if he had done so, that would have created suspicion against him. We may also mention that the place where the bottle M.O. 6 was hidden is only about 30 yards from the place where the body of Erappa was found. Accused 1 could have hidden the bottle when the deceased walked for some distance after eating the bun and collapsed. When questioned under section 342, Criminal Procedure Code, accused 1 has merely denied that he either gave information or produced the folidol bottle, M.O. 6. No explanation has been offered by him as to how he had knowledge that the bottle M.O. 6 containing folidol poison had been hidden in the crevices of the two cement pillars. The recovery of M.O. 6 on the information furnished by accused 1 directly connects him with the crime. As stated already, the bottle was found very near the place where the body of Erappa was found lying. The report of the Chemical Examiner shows that this bottle contained nitrophenol derivative. P.W. 1 Dr. Chowdareddy has stated that folidol is a derivative of nitrophenol. He has also opined that deceased Erappa met with his death due to poisoning by nitrophenol derivative. The report of the Chemical Examiner shows that this bottle contained nitrophenol derivative. P.W. 1 Dr. Chowdareddy has stated that folidol is a derivative of nitrophenol. He has also opined that deceased Erappa met with his death due to poisoning by nitrophenol derivative. The extra-judicial confession made by accused 1 discloses that he had with him on the evening in question a bottle containing folidol. From the evidence discussed above, the only conclusion that can be reached is that accused 1 was the person who administered folidol to Erappa and caused his death We have, therefore no hesitation in agreeing with the learned Judge that the prosecution has established beyond all reasonable doubt, the charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against accused 1.Taking next the case against accused 2 and 3, P.W. 10 Nadipanna and P.W. 11 Kondappa have given evidence about the motive. Their evidence discloses that Erappa was keeping one Muniyamma and spending all his earnings on her and totally neglecting accused 2 and 3. There were frequent quarrels as a result of this and deceased Erappa also used to beat them. Though these witnesses are relations of the deceased, there is no reason to reject their evidence that there were frequent quarrels between accused 2 and 3 and the deceased because he was keeping Muniyamma and neglecting them. P.W. 6 Sriramalu, P.W. 8 Rama Rao, P.W. 9 Chinnanarayanaswamy and P.W. 10 Nadippanna, who have spoken to the extra-judicial confession of accused I have also given evidence about the extra-judicial confession made to them by accused 2 and 3, when they questioned them after accused 1 had made a clean breast of the whole affair. Broadly stated, the evidence of these witnesses is that accused 2 and 3 admitted that because of the ill-treatment meted out to them by Erappa, they instigated accused 1 to murder Erappa and they promised to pay him Rs. 30. Accused 2 also admitted that on that evening she gave a bottle of folidol to accused 1. Accused 3 also stated that she had given four annas to accused 1 to purchase buns. We have already discussed the evidence of these witnesses while considering the question of extra-judicial confession made by accused 1. 30. Accused 2 also admitted that on that evening she gave a bottle of folidol to accused 1. Accused 3 also stated that she had given four annas to accused 1 to purchase buns. We have already discussed the evidence of these witnesses while considering the question of extra-judicial confession made by accused 1. It is sufficient to say that there is no reason to reject the evidence of these witnesses, so far as the extrajudicial confession made to them by accused 2 and 3 is concerned. There is also the extra-judicial confession made by accused 1 implicating himself and accused 2 and 3, which can be taken into consideration against accused 2 and 3 under section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act if there is other reliable evidence against accused 2 and 3 to lend assurance to that evidence. But the question for consideration is whether the extra-judicial confession made by accused 2 and 3 has been corroborated in material particulars connecting accused 2 and 3 with the crime. In Ratan Gond v. The State of Bihar1, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have stated that usually as a matter of caution Courts insist that there should be some material corroboration to an extra-judicial confession made by the accused connecting them with the crime in question. In paragraph 8 of the said decision, their Lordships have observed as follows: Excluding the statements of Aghani, what then is the evidence against the appellant? Firstly, we have the extra-judicial confession. Then, we have the following circumstances which the Court below have held to have been clearly established against the appellant, namely (a) recovery of the blood-stained ‘balua’ from a room of the appellant, (b) recovery of the blood-stained strands of hair from a place pointed out by the appellant and (c) disappearance of the appellant from the village immediately after the murder and his arrest in village Karmapani in circumstances mentioned by Maheswhar Sai (P.W. 6). Lastly, there is another adverse circumstance which arises out of the total denial by the appellant of the recovery of the blood-stained ‘balua’ and of his arrest in village Karmapani. As to the extra-judicial confession, two questions arise: Is it voluntary, and, if so, is it true? Lastly, there is another adverse circumstance which arises out of the total denial by the appellant of the recovery of the blood-stained ‘balua’ and of his arrest in village Karmapani. As to the extra-judicial confession, two questions arise: Is it voluntary, and, if so, is it true? The appellant denied at a later stage that he had made a confession, but it is not necessary to consider in this case the abstract question as to whether, as against its maker, a conviction can be based on a confession which is found to be voluntary and true. It is enough to state that usually and as a matter of caution, Courts require some material corroboration to such a confessional statement corroboration which connects the accused person with the crime in question, and the real question which falls for decision in the present case is if the circumstances proved against the appellant afford sufficient corroboration to the confessional statement of the appellant, in case we hold that the confessional statement is voluntary and true." In that particular case, because of the recovery of the blood-stained ‘balua’ from a room of the appellant and the recovery of blood-stained strands of hair pointed out by the appellant, their Lordships held from these circumstances that there was material corroboration of the extra-judicial confessional statement made by the accused connecting him with the crime and confirmed his conviction. In the present case, so far as accused 1 is concerned, the recovery of M.O. 6, bottle containing folidol, corroborates his confessional statement in material particulars connecting him with the crime in question. So far as accused 2 and 3 are concerned, the question for consideration in this case is, whether there is any corroboration of their extra-judicial confession connecting them with the crime. Sri Vijayashankar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State, has argued that the evidence of motive let in by the prosecution corroborates in material particulars, the extra-judicial confession made by accused 2 and 3. He argues that the evidence clearly establishes that accused 2 and 3 instigated accused 1 and as a result of such instigation, accused 1 committed the murder of Erappa. It is no doubt a fact that the prosecution has established that accused 2 and 3 had motive to commit the murder of Erappa. He argues that the evidence clearly establishes that accused 2 and 3 instigated accused 1 and as a result of such instigation, accused 1 committed the murder of Erappa. It is no doubt a fact that the prosecution has established that accused 2 and 3 had motive to commit the murder of Erappa. But from the mere fact chat accused 2 and 3 had a motive to commit the murder of the deceased, can it be said that this materially corroborates the extra-judicial confession made by them connecting them with the crime? Because a person has got a motive to commit a crime it does not follow from that that he has committed the crime. We may point out as an illustration that number of husbands ill-treated their wives and make their lives miserable. Merely because the wives have adequate motive, we cannot jump to the conclusion that they have committed the crime unless there is other satisfactory evidence connecting them with the crime. Though a person may have a compelling motive, yet he may not commit the offence. A person may have a number of enemies each having adequate motive. We are, therefore, of opinion that though accused 2 and 3 may have had an adequate motive, the motive by itself would not constitute material corroboration of the extra-judicial confession, connecting them with the crime, applying the test laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision referred to above. In another decision Mulk Raj v. The State of U.P.1, the Supreme Court has considered the question of extra-judicial confession. In paragraph 11, his Lordship Subba Rao, J., (as he then was) has observed as follows: “* * * * An extra-judicial confession if voluntary, can be relied upon by the Court along with other evidence in convicting the accused The confession will have to be proved just like any other fact. The value of the evidence as to the confession just 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 asnearly as possible, but it is not an invariable rule that the Court should not accept the evidence is 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 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,......his capacity to understand the language in which the accused made the confession, to accept the evidence or not. * * * * * * *”. It may be noted that their Lordships have observed that extra-judicial confession if voluntary can be accepted along with other evidence for convicting the accused. In this decision also, their Lordships have emphasised that along with an extrajudicial confession, there must be other evidence. In that particular case, because apart from the extra-judicial confession, there was evidence that the accused was seen running away from the scene immediately after the occurrence and was further seen throwing a blood-stained dagger into a Nali, which was subsequently recovered which corroborated in material particulars the extra-judicial confession made by him and connected him with the crime, their Lordships confirmed the conviction in that case. The learned Sessions Judge, considering the case of accused 2 and 3, in paragraph 19 of his judgment has observed as follows: “* * * * The question now for consideration is as to whether the Court can act upon the confession of A-2 and A-3, because it is retracted. Though as a matter of pure law, there may be nothing to prevent a Court from convicting on a retracted confession alone as a matter of prudence and caution which has sanctified itself into a rule of law, a retracted confession cannot be made solely the basis of conviction unless the same is corroborated. It does not necessarily mean that each and every circumstance mentioned in the confession regarding the complicity of the accused must be separately and independently corroborated. In the case of a confession which is retracted, general corroboration is sufficient.” The learned Sessions Judge thought that in the case of an extra-judicial confession general corroboration would be sufficient. He was possibly having in mind the decision of the Supreme Court in Subramania Goundan v. State of Madras1, which deals with a confession made to a Magistrate. In the case of a confession which is retracted, general corroboration is sufficient.” The learned Sessions Judge thought that in the case of an extra-judicial confession general corroboration would be sufficient. He was possibly having in mind the decision of the Supreme Court in Subramania Goundan v. State of Madras1, which deals with a confession made to a Magistrate. It is no doubt a fact that in that case, their Lordships have observed that in a retracted confession, it is sufficient if there is general corroboration. In Subramania Goundan’s case1, their Lordships were considering the confession made by the accused to a Magistrate under section 164, Criminal Procedure Code. This confession made to a Magistrate was retracted by the accused in the course of the trial. Their Lordships held that so far as the confession made under section 164, Criminal Procedure Code, to the Magistrate which had been subsequently retracted was concerned, general corroboration was sufficient. Their Lordships also observed that when accepting the same, the Court must be satisfied that the reasons given by the accused for retraction are untrue. In the case of extra-judicial confession, the question of retraction does not seem to arise. The only question is whether the accused admits or denies that he made the extra-judicial confession. The question of the Court being satisfied about the reasons given by the accused for retracting from the same also does not arise. An extra-judicial confession does not stand on the same footing as a judicial confession- a confession made to a Magistrate under section 164, Criminal Procedure Code. The Magistrate administers the necessary warnings to the accused, gives him time for reflection and sees that there is no pressure or influence exerted on the accused, and after satisfying himself that the confession is voluntary, he records the same. In extra-judicial confessions which are not even recorded in writing, there are no such safeguards. Sometimes extra-judicial confessions are made in a boastful spirit and there may be lot of exaggeration in the same. There are instances where extrajudicial confessions are made falsely to shield some person out of affection, such as that by a son to save his father. It is because of these dangers, law insists that so far as an extra-judicial confession is concerned, as contrasted to a confession recorded toy a Magistrate, there should be material corroboration connecting the accused with the crime. It is because of these dangers, law insists that so far as an extra-judicial confession is concerned, as contrasted to a confession recorded toy a Magistrate, there should be material corroboration connecting the accused with the crime. As pointed out earlier in Ratan Gond v. State of Bihar2, their Lordships have clearly laid down so far as extra-judicial confessions are concerned, that as a matter of caution, Courts require some material corroboration connecting the accused with the crime. In this case, we are of the opinion that there is no material corroboration of the extra-judicial confession made by accused 2 and 3 connecting them with the crime. If the prosecution had examined Nabisab, dealer in folidol, possibly that would have connected accused 2 with the crime. P.W. 13 Inspector Kishansing, has given evidence that this Nabisab could not be examined by him as he was not available. He was able to trace Nabisab and record his statement only after the charge-sheet was filed. In cross-examination, he has stated that he did not obtain any written permission of the Court for examining Nabisab after the charge-sheet was placed. The records disclose that the learned Public Prosecutor filed a memo. stating that it was unnecessary to examine this witness. In this state of evidence, so far as the extra-judicial confession of accused 2 and 3 is concerned, there is no material corroboration of the same connecting them with the crime. It follows from this that the conviction of accused 2 and 3 of the charge under section 302 read with section 109 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained, and has to be set aside. In the result, for the reasons stated above, we dismiss Criminal Appeal No. 430 of 1965 and confirm the conviction and sentence passed on accused 1 Narasimhadu, by the learned Sessions Judge, Kolar. We allow Criminal Appeal No. 373 of 1965 and set aside the conviction and sentence passed on accused 2 and 3 by the learned Sessions Judge and we direct that accused 2 Guramma and accused 3 Chinnamma be set at liberty forthwith. S.V.S. ----- Order accordingly.