JUDGEMENT: (1) IN an otherwise quite and small village under Police Station Karanpur, District Sriganganagar (Rajasthan) an unusual spine chilling occurrence took place in the wee hours of 7th July, 1976 resulting in the commission of an offence of patricide. The killer is the appellant and victim his unfortunate father. Such a heinous crime was committed on trifle issue which commenced with the altercation between the father and the son. Father reminded the appellant of his wasteful expenditure which was not to the liking of the son who pulled down the deceased on the ground and smashed his skull with a Kassi (Dagger). On the next morning the appellant went to Jarnail Singh (Public Witness 2) and confessed about the commission of the crime and the manner in which the injuries were caused resulting in the death of the deceased Bhajan Singh. In the company of Jarnail Singh (Public Witness 2), the appellant approached Billor Singh (Public Witness 5), Niranjan Singh (Public Witness 6) and Joginder Singh (Public Witness 7) making before them the extra judicial confession and requesting them to help him. Jarnail Singh (Public Witness 2) and Billor Singh (Public Witness 5) thereafter called Amar Singh, Panch. Jarnail Singh lodged the First Information Report (Exhibit P-2) at 12.30 pm. at Police Station, Karanpur which was at distance of 8 kilometers from the place of occurrence. The appellant was arrested on the same day. He made the disclosure statement (Exhibit P21) consequent to which Kassi, the weapon of offence (Exhibit PI 9), was recovered. Again on 12 -7- 1976 the appellant made another disclosure statement in consequence of which a Chadar (sheet) (Exhibit P-12) stained with blood was recovered vide (Exhibit P-22). (2) THE appellant was committed to the Court of Session on 10-2 -1977 for standing his trial under Section 302, Indian Penal Code. After the prosecution produced 12 witnesses, the trial Court vide its judgment dated 9-8-1978 held the appellant guilty and convicted him under Section 302, Indian Penal Code. On the facts and circumstances of the case the appellant was awarded life imprisonment. The appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment of the trial Court was dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court vide the judgment impugned in this appeal. On the facts and circumstances of the case the appellant was awarded life imprisonment. The appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment of the trial Court was dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court vide the judgment impugned in this appeal. (3) BEFORE appreciating the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant by his counsel, it is useful to note down the conspectus under which the offence was committed . It is also necessary to note the relationship of the witnesses with the deceased and the appellant. Bhajan Singh, the unfortunate victim of the crime had two wives. The appellant is the son from the second wife Ms. Har Kaur who was previously married to one Kapur Singh. Joginder Singh (Public Witness 7) is the son and Naranjan Singh (Public Witness 6) is the son in-law from the first wife of the victim. Bhajan Singh, deceased had a brother, namely. Rood Singh whose son is Jarnail Singh (Public Witness 2). Bhajan Singh, deceased was in possession of 105 Bighas of land at Badopal (Rajasthan) where he used to live with the appellant. Joginder Singh (Public Witness 7) was living in Punjab where he looked after 40 acres of the other land belonging to Bhajan Singh and his family. Some altercation is stated to have taken place between Bhajan Singh and the appellant some days before the occurrence regarding expenditure incurred by the accused in the marriage of this sister-in-law and installation of a hand pump. On the day of occurrence which led to the killing of the deceased, the conversation commenced on the same issue which was not taken of kindly by the appellant who inflicted the Kassi blow at 01 a.m. on 7th July, 1976 resulting in the death of the deceased. (4) ADMITTEDLY, there is no direct evidence of eye-witnesses. The case of the prosecution is primarily based upon the extra judicial confession of the appellant coupled with the discovery of new facts leading to recovery of weapon of offence and other incriminating articles. Prosecution has also relied upon the existence of a motive which infuriated the deceased to commit the crime. The case of the prosecution is primarily based upon the extra judicial confession of the appellant coupled with the discovery of new facts leading to recovery of weapon of offence and other incriminating articles. Prosecution has also relied upon the existence of a motive which infuriated the deceased to commit the crime. It is, however, undisputed that the death of Bhajan Singh was homicidal and the manner in which the injuries were inflicted on the vital parts of his body shows that commission of crime of murder within the meaning of Section 300, Indian Penal Code not falling under any of the exceptions specified therein. (5) MR. Doongar Singh, the learned Advocate who appeared for the appellant submitted that extra judicial confession allegedly made by the appellant has not been proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubts. According to him the appellant has wrongly been roped into the charge of murder of his father by the prosecution witnesses with oblique motive of usurping the property left by the deceased. It is contended that as the main witnesses have turned hostile, the conviction based upon their testimony is not justified. (6) IT is settled position of law that extra judicial confession, if true and voluntary, it can be relied upon by the Court to convict the accused for the commission of the crime alleged. Despite inherent weakness of extra judicial confession as an item of evidence, it cannot be ignored when shown that such confession was made before a person who has no reason to state falsely and to whom it is made in the circumstances which tend to support the statement. Relying upon an earlier judgment in Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State ofYmdhya Pradesh, 1954 SCR 1098 : ( AIR 1954 SC 322 ), this Court again in Maghar Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1975 SC 1320 : (1975 Cri LJ 1102) held that the evidence in the form of extra judicial confession made by the accused to witnesses cannot be always termed to be a tainted evidence. Corroboration of such evidence is required only by way of abundant caution. If the Court believe the witness before whom the confession is made and is satisfied that the confession was true and voluntarily made, then the conviction can be founded on such evidence alone. In Narayan Singh v. State ofM. Corroboration of such evidence is required only by way of abundant caution. If the Court believe the witness before whom the confession is made and is satisfied that the confession was true and voluntarily made, then the conviction can be founded on such evidence alone. In Narayan Singh v. State ofM. P., AIR 1985 SC 1678 : (1985 Cri LJ 1862) this Court cautioned that it is not open to the Court trying the criminal case to start with presumption that extra judicial confession is always a weak type of evidence. It would depend on the nature of the circumstances, the time when the confession is made and the credibility of the witnesses who speak for such a confession. The retraction of extra judicial confession which is a usual phenomenon in criminal cases would by itself not weaken the case of the prosecution based upon such a confession . In Kishore Chand v. State ofM.P., AIR J990SC2140: (1990 Cri LJ 2289) this Court held that an unambiguous extra judicial confession possessies high probative value force as it emanates from the person who committed the crime and is admissible in evidence provided it is free from suspicion and suggestion of any falsity. However, before relying on the alleged confession, the Court has to be satisfied that it is voluntary and is not the result of inducement, threat or promise envisaged under Section 24 of the Evidence Act or was brought about in suspicious circumstances to circumvent Sections 25 and (7) THE Court is required to look into the surrounding circumstances to find out as to whether such confession is not inspired by any improper or collateral consideration or circumvention of law suggesting that it may not be true. All relevant circumstances such as the person to whom the confession is made, the time and place of making it, the circumstances in which it was made have to be scrutinised. To the same effect is the judgment in Baldev Raj v. State of Haryana, AIR 1991 SC 37 : (1990 Cri LJ 2643). All relevant circumstances such as the person to whom the confession is made, the time and place of making it, the circumstances in which it was made have to be scrutinised. To the same effect is the judgment in Baldev Raj v. State of Haryana, AIR 1991 SC 37 : (1990 Cri LJ 2643). After referring to the judgment in Piara Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1977 SC 2274 : (1977 Cri LJ 1941), this Court in Madan Copal Kakkad v. Naval Dubey, (1992) 3 JT(SC) 270: (1992 AIR SCW 1480), held that the extra judicial confession which is not obtained by coercion, promise of favour or false hope and is plenary in character and voluntary in nature can be made the basis for conviction even without corroboration. (8) IN the instant case the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant has been sought to be proved by the testimony of Public Witnesss 2,5,6 and 7. As noticed earlier, all the aforesaid witnesses are closely related to the appellant in whom, under the normal circumstances, he would have confided hoping help, protection and being safeguarded. The confession has been made instantaneously immediately after the occurrence and is not alleged to have been procured under any undue influence, coercion or pressure. Though the appellant expected a favour from the witness, yet none of them is stated to have promised to favour him in case he made a truthful statement regarding the occurrence. Except the alleged usurpation of property of the deceased by Public Witnesss 6 and 7, there is no other suggestion which could tend to show that their evidence is tainted and that the extra judicial confession was not voluntarily made by the appellant. (9) ASSAILING the finding of the High Court, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that since Public Witnesss 2,5 and 7 have been declared hostile and Public Witness 6 is an interested witness, the extra judicial confession attributed to the appellant cannot be held to have been by the prosecution as a fact. (10) IT is true that Public Witness 5 has been declared hostile and no reliance can be placed upon his testimony for the purposes of deciding as to whether the appellant had made the extra judicial confession or not. (10) IT is true that Public Witness 5 has been declared hostile and no reliance can be placed upon his testimony for the purposes of deciding as to whether the appellant had made the extra judicial confession or not. Similarly, the statement of Public Witness 7 Joginder Singh to the extent it refers to the appellant having made extra judicial confession is in admissible in evidence as admittedly by the time this witness reached the place of occurrence, the appellant h id been arrested by the police and any confe .ision made by him thereafter is in admissible in evidence. It is in evidence that the appellant was admittedly arrested before the arrival of Joginder Singh (Public Witness 7) in the village. However, there is reliable evidence of Niranjan Singh (Public Witness 6) which has been believed by both the Courts below and we have not been persuaded to disagree with the aforesaid findings. We are also not impressed by the argument that Public Witness 6 had made the statement allegedly, for depriving the appellant from succession to the estate of Bhajan Singh, deceased. The time, the manner and the attaining circumstances clearly prove that the appellant had made a voluntary extra judicial confession before this witness without any fear, favour or coercion. (11) THE testimony of Public Witness 2 has been assailed on the ground that as he was allegedly declared hostile by the Public Prosecutor, no reliance can be placed upon his testimony. We have scrutinised the statement of Public Witness 2 and find that he had fully supported the case of prosecution in all material particulars. In his examination-in-chief the witness after vividly explaining the manner in which the extra judicial confession was made, stated that after walking on foot for about 4 kilometers he, in the company of others, reached Police Station Karanpur at about 12.00 noon and lodged the report but the Police Station did not register a case on the pretext that it was a family matter and that the report would be registered only after making an enquiry in the village. Finding such a statement to be realising from the earlier testimony, the Public Prosecutor sought the permission of the Court to declare the witness hostile and "cross-examine him on the ground that he had not stated that Exhibit P2 was not registered at once". Finding such a statement to be realising from the earlier testimony, the Public Prosecutor sought the permission of the Court to declare the witness hostile and "cross-examine him on the ground that he had not stated that Exhibit P2 was not registered at once". The trial Court obliged the Public Prosecutor by permitting him to cross-examine to that extent. The cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor is restricted to the lodging of the First Information Report and not with respect to the factum of his deposition in so far as it relates to the making of extra judicial confession by the appellant. The defence also appears to be conscious of the fact that the Public Prosecutor had sought the permission to cross-examine the witness to a limited extent. The witness was subjected to lengthy and detailed cross-examination with respect to the making of extra judicial confession by the appellant. The trial as well as the High Court rightly relied upon his testimony to hold that the appellant had voluntarily made the extra judicial confessio FOR CITATION : AIR 2001 SC 330