JUDGMENT : B. Panigrahi, J. - The order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Phulbani in Sessions Case No. 48 of 1989 u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code, in short IPC. sentencing the Appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life has been called in question in this appeal. 2. The de facto complainant is the son of the deceased. On 7.3.1989 he lodged a report Ext.7 in Kotagarh Police Station and it was treated as F.I.R. on the basis of which investigation started. In the F.I.R. it has been, inter alia, stated that the tie facto complainant's father went to a place locally known as Sedimaha' to collect Salop juice. The Appellant also went there for the said purpose. While collecting such juice, there was a quarrel between the Appellant and the deceased. It is alleged that the Appellant assaulted the deceased by means of wooden lathi, as a result of which he immediately sank down.P.W.3, Rutumai Pradhan. is stated to nave witnessed the incident. On being questioned by her as to why he assaulted the old man (deceased), the Appellant threatened to assault her. It is further alleged that the Appellant flung a stone on the head of the deceased twice, as a result of which he instantaneously died. The de facto complainant having learnt about his father's death proceeded to the spot and found him lying dead. P.W.3 narrated to him what had happened. On receiving the report, the O.I.C. Kothagarn Police Station (P.W.6) reached at the spot, held inquest over the dead body, prepared the inquest report, sent the dead body for post mortem examination and arrested the accused. It is further stated that the Appellant made an extra-judicial confession before the police in presence of the witnesses. The stone and the lathi, which were stained with blood, were seized from the spot and were sent to the Chemical Analyst and Serologist for opinion. On completion of investigation, charge-sheer was placed against the Appellant. 3. The plea of the Appellant was one of denial of the incident. He claimed to have been falsely implicated in this case. 4. Undisputedly the case of the prosecution rested on the evidence of the single eye witness Rutumai Pradhan, who was examined as P.W.3. Although during investigation she had claimed to have seen the occurrence, but unfortunately she turned hostile during the examination in Court. He claimed to have been falsely implicated in this case. 4. Undisputedly the case of the prosecution rested on the evidence of the single eye witness Rutumai Pradhan, who was examined as P.W.3. Although during investigation she had claimed to have seen the occurrence, but unfortunately she turned hostile during the examination in Court. Therefore, her evidence does not in any way help the prosecution in bringing home the charges to the Appellant. There is no dispute that the deceased Kapur Pradhan met a homicidal death. But the facts situation rests on a narrow compass as to whether the conviction can be sustained only on the basis of the confession alleged to have been made by the Appellant to the police and recovery of the material objects which contained human blood stains. 5. Unfortunately, the learned trial Judge laid over-emphasis on the evidence of the I.O. P.W.6 as regards the confession alleged to have been made by the Appellant in presence of Jadumani Patomajhi (P.W.4). Sidira Patomajhi. Gahu Pradhan the son of the deceased. Gahu Pradhan has not stated any thing regarding the alleged confession out of whom Sidira was not examined in Court as a witness. Though P.W.4. Jadumani corroborated the statement of I.O. in this regard, he has denied the seizure of stick and stone in his presence. The learned trial Judge has also relied on the seizure of material objects without looking into the facts situation that those were seized from an open field which was accessible to all. Even assuming that those had been seized, there is no evidence that it contained the blood group of the deceased to connect the material objects with the crime. As regards extra-judicial confession, as a rule of prudence, it should receive corroboration from other evidence. The extra judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and it should not have been relied upon without considering the other circumstances placed on record. Since there has been no connecting links proved by the prosecution to suggest that the Appellant had committed the offence, we are not inclined to uphold the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge. 6. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge are hereby set aside. The bail bond furnished by the accused Appellant is cancelled. P.K. Misra, J. 7. I agree. Final Result : Allowed