JUDGMENT : R.K. Patra, J. - The appellant stands convicted u/s 302, I. P. C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life. He has also been convicted u/s 301, I. P. C., but no separate sentence has been passed thereunder. 2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that the appellant was under the impression that Bumuni Dei (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') was witch and was bent upon to kill him by practising witch-craft. So on 15-1-1992 he throttled the neck of the deseased near 'Handia Goodam' in village Dangadiha and thereafter carried the body of the deceased to a place near the house of co-accused Anadi (since acquitted). There he tied the hands and legs of the deceased with a rope, and with the help of the co-accused Anadi carried the body of the deceased by means of a wooden pole to a nearby stream. The appellant there checked whether the deceased was breathing. Suspecting that she might be alive, he picked up a stone and dealt a blow with that stone on the head of the deceased. After he was satisfied that the deceased was dead, he with the help of co-accused Anadi took the dead-body of the deceased to the land of one Mangta Ho and buried it. On 22-1-1992 one Bhaktu Majhi discovered the dead- body of the deceased who reported the matter to the police. An U. D. (unnatural death) case was registered. During Inquiry the police found that the deceased was done to death. Accordingly, the case was converted to one of murder and the Officer in-charge, Satikosia P. S. registered a case u/s 302, I. P. C. against 'unknown' by drawing up a formal F. I. R.. After completion of investigation, the appellant and the co-accused, Anadi, were placed on trial ending in the conviction of the appellant and acquittal of the co-accused of the charge u/s 201, I. P. C.. 3. The plea of the appellant was one of denial. 4. Prosecution examined eight witnesses. P. w. 1 is a witness to the inquest of the dead-body and seizure of a wooden pole. P. w. 2 is a witness to the seizure of the stone from the stream. P. ws. 3, 4 and 5 are the co-villagers of the appellant before whom he made extra-judicial confession. 4. Prosecution examined eight witnesses. P. w. 1 is a witness to the inquest of the dead-body and seizure of a wooden pole. P. w. 2 is a witness to the seizure of the stone from the stream. P. ws. 3, 4 and 5 are the co-villagers of the appellant before whom he made extra-judicial confession. P. w. 6 is the doctor who conducted post-mortem examination on the dead-body of the deceased. P. ws. 7 and 8 are the Investigating Officers. 5. The doctor (p. w. 6) conducted autopsy on the dead-body of the deceased on 23-1-1992. According to him, the body was badly de-composed and the left hand of the deceased was missing. There was a fracture on the skull bone. He opined, that the death of the deceased was probably caused due to the injury on the head. The death had occurred more than one week- before the post mortem examination. He ruled out the possibility of death by strangulation. On the basis of his evidence as well as the evidence of the witnesses to the inquest, there can be no doubt that the deceased died a homicidal death and her body was buried under the earth. 6. Admittedly, there is no eye witness to the occurrence. The learned Sessions Judge basing on the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant before p. ws. 3. 4 and 5 has recorded the conviction. 7. The short question for consideration is whether on the basis of the-retracted extra-judicial confession, as deposed by p. ws. 3,4 and 5, the conviction of the appellant u/s 302, I. P. C. Can be upheld. P. w. 7, the first Investigating Officer stated that in course of investigation he recorded the statements of Jande, Chhotrai and Minsingh on 13-2-1992 who told him that the appellant has confessed his guilt. P. w. 8, the second Investigating Officer started that the got the statements of the aforesaid persons recorded u/s 164, Cr. P. C. in the court of the S. D. J. M. Strangely the prosecution did not examine any of then in course of trial. Instead, p. ws. 3 to 5 were examined to establish that the appellant made confesssion before them. The appellant was arrested on 14-2-1992 and forwarded to the court on the next day. From the lower court's records we find that p. ws. 3 to 5 were examined on 28-4-1992. Instead, p. ws. 3 to 5 were examined to establish that the appellant made confesssion before them. The appellant was arrested on 14-2-1992 and forwarded to the court on the next day. From the lower court's records we find that p. ws. 3 to 5 were examined on 28-4-1992. This goes to show that these witnesses (p. ws. 3 to 5) were examined for the first time two months after the arrest of the appellant and four months after the dead-body of the deceased was discovered. There is no explanation by the prosecution as to why there was such delay in their examination when they were admittedly available for the purpose in the village. In the back-ground of the aforesaid facts, let us proceed to assess the evidence of p, ws. 3 to 5. P. w 3 was cross-examined by the prosecution as he resiled from his previous statement. He stated that he was only once examined by the police and on being asked, he denied any knowledge about the occurrence. This being the position, the evidence of p w. 3 does not help the prosecution in any manner. P. w, 4 stated that last year one day after the 'Makat Saokranti' he went to the house of the appellant where p. w, 3 was present On being asked the appellant stated that he killed the deceased. On further: query, the appellant stated that he, killed the deceased by pressing her neck. After tying her body with a wooden pole, he carried the same to nearby stream where he examined the chest of the deceased and. as it was quite warm, he brought a stone and smashed the head of the deceased with it. It may be noted that the doctor who conducted post mortem examination did not find any legature mark on the neck of the deceased. He also stated that if the head is smashed with a stone or in hit with sufficient force, there would be multiple fracture of the skull as well as depression and he did not find any such feature on the skull of the deceased. It is well known that the confession must not only be voluntary, but also be true. He also stated that if the head is smashed with a stone or in hit with sufficient force, there would be multiple fracture of the skull as well as depression and he did not find any such feature on the skull of the deceased. It is well known that the confession must not only be voluntary, but also be true. From the evidence of the doctor as indicated above, it cannot be conclusively said that version of the appellant as deposed by p, w. 4 with regard to the manner of killing the deceased was true. Besides this, it has been brought out in the cross-examination of p. w. 4 that whenever any occurrence takes place in the areas, the police consults him and in connection with the murder of the deceased one Inspector called Paresh Murmu came to him 2 to 3 times. It is in the evidence of p. w. 3 that this witness (p. w. 4) had appeared as a witness for the prosecution in an elephant killing case against the appellant. On close reading of the evidence of p. w. 4 it appears to us that he was a 'stock witness' of the prosecution and whenever it finds any inconvenience it sets up p. w. 4 as a prosecution witness. In these circumstances, his evidence does not inspire any confidence. P. w. 5 stated that on being asked by p. w. 4, the appellant confessed to have killed the deceased. In the cross-examination, he admitted that p. w. 4 was putting questions to the appellant and the latter was narrating the entire incident step-by-step. This evidence of p. w. 6 gives an impression that the appellant was subjected to grilling be p. w. 4 as if the latter was investigating a case. P. w. 5 stated that police came to him twice and during first visit he denied his knowledge about the occurrence. For all the aforesaid reasons, the evidence of p. ws. 3 to 5 cannot be held to be reliable and trustworthy. 8. There is no other evidence to connect the appellant with the commission of the crime. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that he is entitled to be acquitted. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed. For all the aforesaid reasons, the evidence of p. ws. 3 to 5 cannot be held to be reliable and trustworthy. 8. There is no other evidence to connect the appellant with the commission of the crime. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that he is entitled to be acquitted. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence passed against the appellant under sections 302 and 201, I. P. C. are hereby set aside and he is acquitted of the charges. He may be set at libery forthwith, if his detention is not required in any other case. Ch. P.K. Misra, J. 10. I agree. 11. Appeal allowed. Final Result : Allowed