Judgment D.N.Prasad, J. 1. This criminal appeal arises out of judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the then 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge at Jamshedpur by which the learned Judge convicted the appellant under Secs. 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo RI for life under Sec. 302, IPC but no separate sentence was passed under Sec. 201 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief as stated that on 18th December, 1987 the appellant had gone to Singhpure market and they were seen drinking liquor there. In the evening at about 6-7 p.m. Satrughan Sabar brother of the appellant. Guru Sabar came and informed that his brother (appellant) and his wife had not returned the house as yet. Thereafter, in the very night, the informant and Satrughan Sabar started searching them but they could not be traced. It is further alleged that on the following day, i.e., on 19-12-1987 the appellant Guru Sabar came to the house of the informant and stated that he along with his wife drank liquor in the Singhpure market and thereafter they became dead drunk and thereafter they were returning from Singh pure market, when his wife fell asleep in the forest near a bridge in Barodahi forest. He tried to awake her up but when she did not get up he kicked her with his leg but even then she could not woke up and then he assaulted her with lathi as a result of which she died and thereafter he took her dead body to a bush about 50 yards from the road and the dead body was left there and thereafter he fled away. It is further alleged that the informant visited the place of occurrence after the information and saw the dead body of Burhiya Sabar lying in the said forest and thereafter he informed Satrughan Sabar and others of the village and thereafter the police was informed and accordingly the informant gave his fardbayan (Ext. 1). 3. The police investigated into the case and submitted charge-sheet under Secs. 302/201, IPC against the appellant. Witnesses were examined in the lower Court and after hearing both sides and considering the evidence on record, the learned Trial Judge convicted the appellant for the offences charged. 4. 1). 3. The police investigated into the case and submitted charge-sheet under Secs. 302/201, IPC against the appellant. Witnesses were examined in the lower Court and after hearing both sides and considering the evidence on record, the learned Trial Judge convicted the appellant for the offences charged. 4. On being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment, the appellant preferred this appeal on the ground that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case out of village politics and there is no eye-witness of the occurrence as well as there is no independent witness to the point. The sole point arises for consideration, at this stage as to whether the prosecution has been able to establish the charges against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. 5. Altogether seven witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution of whom PW 1, M.S. Khan and PW 2, Nagendranath Mitra are the formal witnesses. PW3, Sadanand Sabar, the informant stated that he had seen the appellant and his wife taking liquor in the market of Singhpure. He further stated that Satrughan Sabar and Chotu Sabar came to his house and informed that the appellant and his wife did not return as yet from the market. He further deposed that appellant, Guru Sabar came to his house in the same evening and stated that he may be saved as he already killed his wife. He further deposed in para 3 that he along with Satrughan Sabar. Chotu Sabar, Suphal Sabar and Prafullo Mahato went to the forest to search the dead body and the said dead body was found lying near the tree. He also informed the police and he gave his fardbayan. He further admitted in his crossexamination that there is also Chowkidar residing in the same village as well as there is Gram Panchayat there. He also admitted in para 10 that the appellant narrated the incident before him, but he has not disclosed this fact either before the Gram Panchayat or the Chowkidar. He further stated in para 12 that he has not informed anybody of the village in respect of the dead body. He also claimed in para 4 that he had seen injuries at cheek, leg and waist of the deceased. 6. He further stated in para 12 that he has not informed anybody of the village in respect of the dead body. He also claimed in para 4 that he had seen injuries at cheek, leg and waist of the deceased. 6. PW 4, Suphal Sabar, stated that he had seen the appellant and his wife near Singhpure Jungle when they were quarrelling but he is silent about the occurrence. PW 5. Purushottam Narayan Singh is the doctor, who held post-mortem on the dead body of Bhuriya Sabarin and found the following antemortem injuries: (i) Bruise (blackish) 3" x 2" with swelling 4" 2-1/2" over left side of temple. On dissection of this particular wound subdural achymosis was seen with blood clot in the temporal lobe of the brain. (ii) Mark of bruise (blackish) 4" x 3-1/2" with swelling 4-1/2" x 2" covering the right eye completely and the cheek. On dissention subcutinious and subdural achymosis was seen. (iii) Mark of bruise 4" x 3" (blackish) over right elbow joint. (iv) Mark of bruise 10" x 6" over right side of lip and back. (v) Bruise (blackish) 4-1/2" x 2 1/2" over right leg below knee joint. (vi) Bruise 4-1/2" x 3" (blackish) over left side of hip. (vii) Bruise 6" x 3" (blackish) over left arm. He stated in para 6 that bruise can also be caused other than violance such as by fall. He also admitted that he has not mentioned the shape of the bruise. PW 6, Girja Nandan Pandey is the Investigating Officer and, according to him he visited the place of occurrence and found the dead body lying in the forest. He also claimed to have examined witnesses and the dead body was sent for post-mortem. He admitted in para 10 that there is no mention in the inquest report to the fact that the dead body was actually concealed in the bush. He further admitted that he had not sent the blood stained earth for chemical examination. PW 7, Narayan Sabar stated that he had seen the appellant and his wife quarrelling each other in the Barodiha forest, but he has not stated anything about the story of assault by the appellant. No any other witness has been examined on behalf of the prosecution. 7 The appellant was examined under Sec. 313. Cr. P.C. and he denied the allegation. 8. No any other witness has been examined on behalf of the prosecution. 7 The appellant was examined under Sec. 313. Cr. P.C. and he denied the allegation. 8. Obviously, there is no eye-witness of the occurrence. PW 4, Suphal Sabar and PW 7 only claimed to have seen the appellant and his wife quarrelling each other. It is admitted position that both the appellant and his wife had taken liquor and they were dead drunk at the relevant time. PW 3, the informant claimed that the appellant made confession before him that he had murdered his wife, but apparently there is no corroboration of this fact. Moreover, PW 3 also admitted in clear terms that he had not reported the matter of his confession either to the Chowkidar or to any villager at the relevant time. It is also claimed that Satrughdn Sabar the brother of the appellant, who also involved in searching them has not been examined on behalf of the prosecution to substantiate the story of the prosecution in the manner as alleged. There is an allegation in the fardbayan (Ext. 1) that the wife of appellant who was also dead drunk slept near the bridge and when she could not woke up the appellant kicked her with legs and there is also allegation that the appellant had assaulted her with lathi when she could not woke up. But, it is an admitted position, at this stage, that there is no eye-witness of the occurrence about the story of assault by the appellant. The doctor found the injury of bruises on the person of dead body and according to him, those bruises can also be caused by fall. It is true that the PW 3, informant claimed about the extra judicial confession made by the appellant which is without corroboration as well as there is no eye-witness of the occurrence. 9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that there is no eye-witness of the occurrence and the whole allegation of the extra-judicial confession has been concocted after thought in order to implicate the appellant falsely and actually the appellant never made any confession before the informant. PW 3. 10. 9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that there is no eye-witness of the occurrence and the whole allegation of the extra-judicial confession has been concocted after thought in order to implicate the appellant falsely and actually the appellant never made any confession before the informant. PW 3. 10. It is further stated that the said extra-judicial confession has also not been corroborated by any other witness as well as the informant, PW 3admitted that he had not reported the matter of extra-judicial confession of the appellant to any other person including Chowkidar of the village which gives much suspicion about the whole story of the said confession. It is also argued that the appellant denied about making extra-judicial confession in his statement under Sec. 213. Cr. PC and the said extra-judicial is a weak type of evidence, which cannot be relied upon exclusively to warrant the conviction of the appellant on the sole ground. 11. It is also submitted that the occurrence took place on 18-12-1987 whereas the case was registered on 20-12-1987, whereas P.W.3 claimed that the appellant had come to his house on 1912-1987 and disclosed about the incidence, but there was no reason as to why the informant did not report the matter to the police or any other villagers including the Chowkidar on the same day i.e. 19-12-1987, rather the fardbayan was recorded on 20-12-1987. The learned counsel for the appellant in support of his contention has also relied upon a case reported in Surinder Kumar V/s. State of Punjab. 12. It is an admitted position that there is no eyewitness of the occurrence. None of the villagers claimed about the occurrence as well as there is no corroboration of the evidence of PW 3 in connection with the alleged extra judicial confession. Nothing incriminating has been recovered from the house of the appellant during investigation. 12. It is an admitted position that there is no eyewitness of the occurrence. None of the villagers claimed about the occurrence as well as there is no corroboration of the evidence of PW 3 in connection with the alleged extra judicial confession. Nothing incriminating has been recovered from the house of the appellant during investigation. The extra-judicial confession as alleged in the instant case finds much suspicious in view of the fact that there is no corroboration of the said evidence and there is no other evidence whatsoever coming forward to rely upon the said extra-judicial confession and as such the veracity of the witness, PW 3 on this point becomes more suspicious and there is no reason why the appellant had confessed before the PW 3, whereas he is neither his relative nor he was holding such post at the relevant time that he may be able to save the appellant on this score. If the appellant actually was to make any confession, he could have easily approached either to the Sarpanch or to the Gram Panchayat or even the police, rather such extra-judicial confession, without any corroboration or without supporting any other evidence on the record, cannot be relied upon. 13. I have already discussed above that there is no corroborative evidence against the appellant for warranting of his conviction and the whole prosecution case becomes suspicious. In the above facts arid circumstances, I find that the prosecution has totally failed to bring home the charges against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. Thus, I do not find the appellant guilty for the offence charged. Hence, the appeal is allowed and the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Court, dated 23-1-1989 is hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted and set at liberty. The appellant, if in custody, be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. R.A.Sharma, J. 14 I agree.