ORDER This is a case where Shivamma, wife of the appellant is alleged to have been killed by the appellant by ligature strangulation on the night of 18.12.1995. The Trial Court and the High Court found him guilty of the offence and convicted him under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. This appeal is by special leave. 2. Shivamma was married to another person, but that marriage did not last long. The appellant had also married another person first but his wife in that first marriage died. Thereafter the appellant took Shivamma as his wife. They had two children. 3. Prosecution case is that the appellant started doubting the fidelity of Shivamma. Some mediation efforts were made to narrow-down the differences between them. On the intervention of persons like PW 4, Shivamma again agreed to live with the appellant. This is the background. 4. The case entirely depends upon circumstantial evidence. Among the circumstances the most formidable one, or according to the prosecution, is the evidence of PW 2 who said that the appellant had told him on the very same night itself that he killed his wife Shivamma by strangulating her with a saree. If the aforesaid extra-judicial confession can be accepted as true and genuine, that by itself can form the basis for conviction. Nonetheless this Court has held in earlier decisions that as a matter of caution the Court must seek corroboration for such extra-judicial confession, even if the same is found genuine and true. 5. PW 2 said that on being informed by the appellant about what he did to the deceased wife he wanted the appellant to remain in the room and he went to collect his son with whom PW 2 went to the house of occurrence and saw the dead body of Shivamma. Thereafter PW 2 went back to his house, but by that time the appellant had escaped from there. PW 2 then went to his boss PW 1, who was a rice mill owner. On the night at 1.00 a.m. he woke PW 1 up from sleep and conveyed the information to him. 6. The First Information Report was lodged by PW 1 at 11.00 a.m. on the following day. In that FIR PW 1 had given full details of what PW 2 had reported to him. On the night at 1.00 a.m. he woke PW 1 up from sleep and conveyed the information to him. 6. The First Information Report was lodged by PW 1 at 11.00 a.m. on the following day. In that FIR PW 1 had given full details of what PW 2 had reported to him. PW 1 himself testified to the whole details in the Court. The Trial Court and the High Court found the testimony of PW 1 quite reliable. The evidence of PW 1 as well as the information contained in the FIR afford corroborative materials for the extra-judicial confession spoken to by PW 2. 7. There is yet another circumstance which gives added assurance to the Court regarding the truth of the version spoken to by PW 2. It was his version that the accused told him about the strangulation of Shivamma with a saree. The medical evidence proves to the hilt that Shivamma was killed by ligature strangulation with a saree. Hence that circumstance is also available for corroborating the evidence of PW 2. 8. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there was delay at two stages. The first was when PW 2 communicated the same to PW 1 and the second was when PW 1 lodged information with the police. But we have not been able to appreciate whether there was any delay at all at either of those stages. PW 2 heard the incident from the accused at 11.30 p.m. and informed his boss PW 1 on the same night within an interval of one and a half hours. Apart from the fact that there was no delay, it shows a case of prompt reporting to his boss. That apart, PW 1 should be admired for taking the trouble to go to the police station situated 14 kms. away for lodging the information with the police. He did that at 11.30 a.m. Here also there is no cause to blame him that he delayed in giving such information to the police. 9. Learned Counsel then contended that prosecution could have examined the son of PW 2 who also would have heard the extra- judicial confession made by the accused. Well, if son was also examined it would have been only an addition to PW 2 s version. Such multiplication of evidence on the same point by father and son may be redundant in certain circumstances. Well, if son was also examined it would have been only an addition to PW 2 s version. Such multiplication of evidence on the same point by father and son may be redundant in certain circumstances. This is one like that. Hence non-examination of the son of PW 2 is of no consequence in this case. 10. In the result we dismiss this appeal. (N.K.R.) Appeal dismissed. **************** Parallel Citations of other Journals : Mundlapadi Krishnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2001(5) Supreme 513 00026