Govinda Menon, J.- Appellant Joseph alias Baby has been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge of Ernakulam for the murder of the one Thankappan on the night of 16th February, 1965 and he has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. P.W. 10 is the mother of the accused and P.W. 11 is his sister. They were all living together in Moonnumakkal house. Accused is a mazdoor who goes about for work in various places and used to be away from the house. Deceased,Thankappan is said to have been visiting the house and was on intimate terms both with the mother and the daughter. In regard to this there was a scandal in the village. On the evening of that day accused and deceased had gone to the toddy shop and consumed toddy. P.W. 8 is the salesman of the shop. After having their drinks they purchased beedies from the shop of P.W. 12 and left the place. On the way they were seen by P.W. 1 who was going to purchase beedies. Before reaching the accused’s house, one has to pass by the lane in front of the houses of P.W. 3, a cousin of the deceased and of P.W. 4. P.W. 7, a daughter of P.W. 3 was then in the house of P.W. 4. Seeing his relations, deceased Thankappan stopped and had a brief talk with them. The accused proceeded ahead and the case of the prosecution is that when the deceased had finished his talk and was proceeding along the deep lane on reaching the entrance to the accused’s compound the accused cropped down some stones M.Os. 1 to 3 series on the head and body of the deceased and thereby caused his death. After this, the accused is stated to have gone along the lane passing by the side of the houses of P.Ws. 3 and 4. PWs. 3, 4 and 7 heard the sound of the falling stones. Their children had gone for fishing and thinking that something might have happened to them P.W. 3 went to see what it was about. On the way seeing the accused she questioned him what the sound was and he said that there was nothing, and passed along. PWs. 3, 4 and 7 heard the sound of the falling stones. Their children had gone for fishing and thinking that something might have happened to them P.W. 3 went to see what it was about. On the way seeing the accused she questioned him what the sound was and he said that there was nothing, and passed along. P.W. 3 went to the neighbouring canal and while coming back with the children when she reached the house of P.W. 4 she heard the accused telling P.W. 4 that she need not go to the place whence the noise cane and that even if a noose were to fall round his neck, others could live in peace. Saying this the accused left the place. P.W. 3 then took a lamp and went to the lane and found Thankappan lying dead. She returned home crying. By that time P.W. 1 was coming back from the shop after purchasing beedies and he met the accused in the lane. The accused then told him that he had finished Thankappan. P.W. 1 called him to his house, but the accused said he would go there later. The accused then went to the shop of P.W. 9 and told P.W. 6, who was there that he had killed Thankappan. P.W. 9 heard this confession, made by the accused. On the way home from the shop P.W. 1 met P.W. 3 who was crying that the accused had killed Thankappan. By the time P.W. 1 reached his house, accused also reached there and he told P.W. 5 who was in the house that he had finished Thankappan though he was not sure whether he was dead or alive. P.Ws. 1 and 5 went to the place and saw Thankappan lying dead. Leaving the accused in charge of P.W. 5, P.W. 1 went to the Thodupuzha Police Station and laid the complaint. P.W. 18, the Sub-Inspector recorded his statement Exhibit P-1 and registered a case. The same night he proceeded to the scene and under his orders P.W. 14 the Head Constable arrested the accused from the house of P.W. 1. On getting information P.W. 19, the Circle Inspector came and took over investigation. He held the inquest and took into custody the seven stones M.Os. 1 to 3 series. After the inquest P.W. 15 the Medical Officer of the Government Hospital at Thodupuzha conducted the autopsy. On getting information P.W. 19, the Circle Inspector came and took over investigation. He held the inquest and took into custody the seven stones M.Os. 1 to 3 series. After the inquest P.W. 15 the Medical Officer of the Government Hospital at Thodupuzha conducted the autopsy. After completing the investigation the accused was charge-sheeted for the offence of murder. Death due to the multiple injuries sustained by the deceased is well proved and is in fact not disputed. The plea of the accused is one of complete denial. According to him all these witnesses have been got at by P.W. 1 and a false case has been foisted against him. The question that arises for decision is whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving that it was the accused who inflicted the injuries on the deceased. There are no eye-witnesses to the occurrence and the case against the accused depends solely on certain extra-judicial confessions alleged to have been made by the accused to some of the prosecution witnesses and the suggestion of a motive for the commission of the crime. The evidence of P.Ws. 8 and 12 and the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 3 and 4 that they saw the accused proceeding along the lane followed by the deceased does not advance the prosecution case. About the motive what is stated is that deceased Thankappan used to frequent the accused’s house in his absence when his mother and sister are alone there, that there was a scandal about this in the village,and the suggestion of the prosecution is that this must have embittered the appellant to take revenge by killing Thankappan. Both P.Ws. 10 and 11 did not support the prosecution story. P.W. 10 no doubt, stated that there was some such talk in the village, but she would say that the scandal was spread by P.W. 1. She stated that deceased used to come to the house only when there was some work to do. Learned Counsel for the defence submitted that if the accused had, in fact, known about the scandal and was on inimical terms with the deceased, it is most unlikely that they would be seen drinking together in the toddy shop, returning together after their drinks and the deceased would not have thought of going to Moonnumakkal house on that night as deposed to by P.W. 4. It was pointed out that there was the evidence of P.W. 1 that because of the bad ways of the deceased, people in the village were on inimical terms with him, that people were feeling that he was spoiling the family and the Christians particularly were, on that account, inimically disposed towards the deceased. Reference was then made to the evidence of P.W. 13 that P.W. 10 the mother had other paramours and it was stated that it might as well be that some of them would have thrown stones at the deceased on seeing him going to the house and if the deceased had been done to death in some such way by some unknown person the one who would be suspected would be the accused, because of the scandal and that accounts for his false implication. There is considerable force in the submission made. It would appear from P.W.1’s evidence that this scandal was there since about two years. There is, therefore, practically no understandable motive for the accused to have done this and adopted this crude method of killing the deceased. Now we will look into the evidence, regarding the extra-judicial confessions. Extra-judicial confessions if voluntarily made are receivable in evidence on being proved like any other fact. They must be proved in the same way as any other admission or statements by the evidence of the persons to whom they were made or who heard them made, or by documents if any in which they have been recorded. Like judicial confession such confessions may also be obtained by coercion, promise of favour, false hope etc., and it has the further infirmity that in most cases owing to the absence of any writing the exact words used by the accused cannot be known and the witness may have misunderstood or may not have remembered or reported accurately. For this reason extra-judicial confessions are not considered of much value,unless the witness reporting can be thoroughly depended upon from all points of view and the acknowledgment of guilt is clear and unequivocal. For this reason extra-judicial confessions are not considered of much value,unless the witness reporting can be thoroughly depended upon from all points of view and the acknowledgment of guilt is clear and unequivocal. Russell, in his Treatise on Crimes and Misdemeanours, 7th Edition, Volume 11 at page 2156 expressed the statement of the law in the following terms: "An extra-judicial confession, if duly made and satisfactorily proved, is sufficient alone to warrant a conviction, without any corroboration aliunde in the case of most crimes; but such a confession is not, as a rule, accepted by itself in cases of murder, or bigamy, or offences involving title to property, all of which may involve mixed question of law and fact." A passage from the judgment of Fitzgerald, J., in R. v. Unkles, In re1, may usefully be extracted: "The rule is rather one of judicial practice than part of the law of evidence............It would perhaps at present be more correct to define it thus, that a party accused of homicide ought not to be convicted on his own confession merely, without proof of the finding of the dead body or evidence aliunde that the party alleged to have been murdered is in fact dead." In Harold White v. The King2, the Judicial Committee also administered a similar caution in appreciating the evidence in regard to confessions. Their Lordships say: "Confessions are not always true, and they must be checked, more particularly in murder cases, in the light of the evidence on record to see if they carry conviction. It would be dangerous in the extreme to act on confession put into the mouth of the accused by a witness with a strong motive for implicating someone else in the murder and uncorroborated from any other source." In the case in In re Venkayalapati Kotaiah of Narasaraopet3, Subba Rao, J., stated: "Though we cannot lay down as an inflexible rule of law that in no case an extra-judicial confession will afford the sole basis for conviction we are of the opinion that in the case of homicide and such other similar grave offences it would not be safe to convict a person on the confession alone unless corroborated by other evidence. This is a rule of prudence rather than of law. This is a rule of prudence rather than of law. The nature and the quality of corroborative evidence must again necessarily depend upon the facts of each case." In Ratan Gond v. State1, it was stated that as a rule of caution, Courts usually require some material corroboration to an extra-judicial confession. With these principles in mind we will now scrutinise the evidence of the witnesses and see how far the witnesses can safely be relied upon and whether there is any corroboration. The first witness is P.W. 1. According to him on that day evening P.W. 5 came to his house at about 7-30 p.m., to take a loan of some money, that they talked for some time and to offer beedies to his friend he started to go to the shop to purchase beedies, that while going he saw the accused and deceased going along the lane leading to the scene of occurrence, while returning he saw the accused getting out of his compound and when he neared him the accused told him ‘I have finished Thankappan’, that he asked him to go with him, but the accused said that he wanted to go somewhere else and promised to go to him later. Proceeding further P.W. 1 said he saw P.W. 3 Karthiayani who was crying out that the accused had killed the deceased. On reaching home the accused’s mother and children were there and when he was about to leave with P.W. 5 the accused also came up and leaving him in the house, he went to the scene and saw the dead body of Thankappan and he then went and laid the complaint Exhibit P. I before the police. The reason for his going out alone without P.W. 5 to purchase beedies sounds not very convincing. If really P.W. 5 had gone there and asked for money and P.W. 1 had money he would have given it then and there or if he had no money with him, he would have told him that and promised to give it on another day and if they wanted to go out they would have gone together to purchase beedies. P.W. 1 has admitted that usually when he sees the accused he does not speak, he does not go to his house, because of the bad ways of the mother and the sister and that himself and the accused’s people cannot be said to be on friendly terms and he has further admitted that even in the Church himself and the accused’s people belong to different sects. P.W. 1 is a man of questionable character and bad antecedents, being an exconvict, having been convicted twice and in one case he himself admit ted that he had undergone imprisonment for six months. He admitted that in one case he had escaped from the lawful custody of the police. Learned Sessions Judge himself has stated that P.W. 1’s antecedents are shady and he was taking more than ordinary interest in the prosecution of the case. Again in cross-examination the witness categorically stated that it was only one week after the occurrence that he was first questioned by the police and he also gave a reason for that and stated that he was not in the village and that was why the Inspector could not question him earlier and the Head Constable was going to his house and making enquiries. In re-examination the witness has been made to eat his own words by saying that he left for Vazhathoppil only 3 or 4 days after the occurrence and the next day itself when the Circle Inspector came to the place he was questioned. His evidence does not ring true and is not at all impressive and convincing. P.W. 5, Raghavan is a tapper living about 4 miles away from the house of P.W. 1. According to him he had gone to P.W. 1 for taking a loan of Rs. 100 and curiously he did not take any money from P.W. 1 on that day. He is after all a creature of P.W. 1. He was asked whether on the day he was examined hehad seen P.W. 1 in Court. P.W. 5, no doubt, stated that he had not seen P.W. 1, but he was asked to go out and see whether P.W. 1 was there and after coming back P.W. 5 gave evidence that P.W. 1 was in fact on the verandah talking to the prosecution witnesses. P.W. 5, no doubt, stated that he had not seen P.W. 1, but he was asked to go out and see whether P.W. 1 was there and after coming back P.W. 5 gave evidence that P.W. 1 was in fact on the verandah talking to the prosecution witnesses. He did not know the accused prior to that date and it seems very strange that the accused would have told him that he had finished Thankappan. Along with the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 5, we will take the evidence of P.W. 13 who is supposed to be a respectable witness of the locality. Purely because he did not support the prosecution he was treated as hostile and cross-examined. He has sworn that on that night P.W. 1 went over to his house with P.W. 5 and told him that he heard that the accused had killed Thankappan, that he was detained in the house, that he was going to one Mathew’s house and that himself and P.W. 5 might go to the house and keep watch over the accused. If, therefore, his present case that the accused had admitted that he had committed the murder, it is most unlikely that he would have told P.W. 13 that he heard that the accused had killed the deceased. He would then have told P.W. 13 that the accused had confessed the guilt before him. The next set of witnesses is P.Ws. 3, 4 and 7. P.W. 3 would say that she heard the falling of stones and had gone to the canal where her children had gone for fishing and while retuning she heard the accused telling P.W. 4 that nobody need go to the place wherefrom the sound was heard, that nothing will happen to them and even if the noose falls on his neck, at least others can live in peace. P.W. 3 stated that after this she went and saw the deceased lying dead and raised an alarm. In cross-examination she is definite that what she cried out was only that she had seen the deceased lying dead. On the other hand P.W. 1 would have it that what P.W. 3 cried out was that the accused had killed Thankappan. P.W. 7 is her daughter and both of them are near relations of the deceased. In cross-examination she is definite that what she cried out was only that she had seen the deceased lying dead. On the other hand P.W. 1 would have it that what P.W. 3 cried out was that the accused had killed Thankappan. P.W. 7 is her daughter and both of them are near relations of the deceased. According to P.W. 4 the accused told her that he was going away, that he does not know whether he will have occasion to see her again and when questioned about the sound, the accused told her that she need not go and see what it is, that he is the only man against whom there would be a case and that the noose will fall only on his neck. P.Ws. 3 and 4, therefore, contradict each other as to what the accused had stated. The witness has admitted that if she sits either on her verandah or even if she is in her courtyard, it will not be possible to see the persons passing along the lane. If that is so, the story of P.Ws. 3, 4 and 7 meeting the accused and the deceased that night becomes highly doubtful. Next set is P.Ws. 6 and 9. P.W. 9 runs a textile and a tailoring shop. He has deposed that on that day at about 8-30 p.m. the accused came to his shop. P.W. 6 and one Chacko were then sitting in the shop, the accused called aside P.W. 6 and then told him that he had killed Thankappan. The reason why P.W. 6 was called out from the shop must necessarily be to speak to P.W. 6 in confidence and yet P.W. 9 wants the Court to believe that the accused was shouting out proclaiming that he had killed the deceased in such a loud tone that himself and Chacko could hear. P.W. 9 further stated that the accused told P.W. 6 that if he is the son of P.W. 10 and Kunjavira he would not spare any one who gets into his house in his absence. To the Circle Inspector the witness stated that the accused told P.W. 6 that if he does not kill Thankappan he is not the son of P.W. 10 and Kunjavira. P.W. 6 when examined has not however supported this case and he was treated as hostile and cross-examined. To the Circle Inspector the witness stated that the accused told P.W. 6 that if he does not kill Thankappan he is not the son of P.W. 10 and Kunjavira. P.W. 6 when examined has not however supported this case and he was treated as hostile and cross-examined. It has come out in evidence that P.W. 9 is not a person who is very friendly with the accused. Some time back there was a theft in his shop and on his complaint the accused was arrested and taken to the Police Station and questioned. It is therefore, extremely doubtful whether the accused would have admitted his guilt in the presence of his old enemy. Thus on account of the various infirmities pointed out, none ofthe witnesses who have given evidence regarding the extra-judicial confession seems to be very reliable and trustworthy. Now even if the confession could be accepted, being retracted, prudence requires that there must be corroboration, which is sadly lacking in this case. The view taken by the Supreme Court on more occasions than one is that 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, however, mean that each and every circumstance must be separately and independently corroborated. There must, however, be corroboration, which connects the accused person with the crime in question. Extra-judicial confessions which are retracted by the accused call for close scrutiny and cannot usually be deemed sufficient to afford the sole basis for conviction. Evidence of oral extrajudicial confession is undoutedly a weak piece of evidence and it would he dangerous to convict a person solely on its basis. It can, no doubt, be taken into consideration only with other evidence. This rule of prudence does not appear-to have been present in the mind of the learned Judge at all. It is, no doubt, a matter of regret that a foul, cold-blooded and cruel murder should go unpunished. It may be, there is an element of truth in the prosecution case and there is room for suspicion against the accused, but suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot be a substitute for positive proof. It is, no doubt, a matter of regret that a foul, cold-blooded and cruel murder should go unpunished. It may be, there is an element of truth in the prosecution case and there is room for suspicion against the accused, but suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot be a substitute for positive proof. Having bestowed careful and anxious thought to the entire evidence in the case, we are unable to hold that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the conviction and the sentence and order that the accused be acquitted. He would be set at liberty forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. M.C.M. ----- Appeal allowed.