JUDGMENT : B. Panigrahi, J. - This appeal portrays a horrendous story that the appellant has killed his own aunt who was his adopted mother (Munga Rana), on 8.11.1993 at about 11 A.M. in village Ratakhandi. 2. The facts leading to this appeal are as follows : That the appellant was the nephew of the deceased Munga Rana. The deceased was the wife of Megha Rana. On the date of incident she had gone to the paddy field. P.W. 2, Grama Rakhi of the village having learnt about the incident from Kanduru Sandha and Jabdu Rana that the appellant had killed his own aunt, accordingly, he lodged a written report at the police station on the basis of which a case was registered against the appellant u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code and investigation was thereafter started. Daitari who was the brother of the appellant, allegedly, informed P.W. 2 that the appellant assaulted the deceased Munga Rana by a Tangia' and killed her. After the report was lodged at the Police Station, P.W. 5, the S.I. of the Police Station arrived at the spot, examined the witnesses, held inquest over the deadbody of the deceased, collected various incriminating materials like sample earth, blood stained earth and sent the deadbody for post-mortem examination to Tusra Government Hospital, arrested the accused, recovered the axe (M.O.I.). On the disclosure statement of the appellant. The 1.0. sent all the incriminating materials for chemical examination. After closure of investigation, he placed the charge sheet against the appellant. It was further revealed that during investigation, the confessional statement of the appellant was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bolangir. 3. In order to sustain the conviction against the appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 5 witnesses of whom P.W. 2 (Banara Nag) was the informant. P.W. 3 (Trinath Majhi) and P.W. 4 (Jabdu Rana) allegedly stated about the extra judicial confession made by the appellant. P.W. 1 was the Doctor who held post-mortem examination over the deadbody of Munga Rana. P.W. 5 was the Investigating Officer. 4. The defence has examined 4 witnesses including the appellant. From the evidence of P.W. 1 the doctor, it is gathered that the deceased Munga Rana received 7 injuries. According to him, all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and could possibly be caused by hard and blunt weapon. P.W. 5 was the Investigating Officer. 4. The defence has examined 4 witnesses including the appellant. From the evidence of P.W. 1 the doctor, it is gathered that the deceased Munga Rana received 7 injuries. According to him, all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and could possibly be caused by hard and blunt weapon. The cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage and those injuries were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Therefore, there could be no room for doubt that the deceased Munga Rana met a homicidal death due to injuries. The learned Trial Judge while convicting the appellant had relied upon six circumstances namely : (i) Judicial confession; (ii) Extra Judicial confession of the accused before the other villagers including P.Ws. 3 and 4; (iii) Recovery of axe (M.O.I), the weapon of offence on the disclosure of the appellant; (iv) The axe (M.O.I) contained human blood; (v) The motive of the appellant; and (vi) Subsequent conduct of the accused. 5. In this case while proving the judicial confession, the prosecution has not examined the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bolangir. A question arises whether it is obligatory on the part of the prosecution to examine the Magistrate, who undisputedly recorded the confession of the appellant. In this respect reliance can be placed on a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Madi Ganga Vs. State of Orissa. In the aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the law that it is unnecessary for the prosecution to examiwe the Magistrate to prove the judicial confession stated to have been recorded by him, as Section 80 of the Evidence Act makes the examination of the Magistrate unnecessary. It authorises the Court to presume that the document is genuine, that any statement as to the circumstances under which it was taken are true and that such confession was truely taken in accordance with law. Therefore, applying the aforesaid rationale of the judgment, we hold that it was unnecessary for the Court below to examine the Magistrate who recorded the confessional statement for proving the same. Furthermore, it appeared that on the confessional statement, the learned Magistrate had taken the thumb impression of the appellant. In that view of the matter, there could no doubt as regards the authenticity of the confessional statement alleged to have been made by the appellant. 6. Furthermore, it appeared that on the confessional statement, the learned Magistrate had taken the thumb impression of the appellant. In that view of the matter, there could no doubt as regards the authenticity of the confessional statement alleged to have been made by the appellant. 6. The next question comes for consideration is whether only on the basis of the confessional statement a conviction can be based. In order to sustain a conviction on the basis of the confessional statement, it is sufficient that the general trend of the confession is substantiated by some evidence which would tally with the contents of the confession. General corroboration is sufficient while taking into consideration the confession made by the accused. Let us now analyse from the facts whether confessional statement received any corroboration from the other evidence of the prosecution. Peculiarly it is seen that the appellant, who was examined as D.W. 4, had resiled from his confessional statement. It is further submitted that such confessional statement was procured by applying force by the police while the appellant was in custody. In this background, it is warranted to discern as to whether the prosecution placed any other credible evidence to prove its case. Apart from judicial confession, we found, the prosecution relied on the evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 4, who allegedly proved the extra-judicial confession which was made by the appellant. From the evidence of P.W. 3, it is however noticed that he did not support the prosecution to the extent that the appellant had made any extra judicial confession. Similarly P.W. 4 also did not support the prosecution case with regard to the extra judicial confession. Therefore, P.Ws. 3 and 4 did not support the prosecution as regards to extra judicial confession. Then we left with the evidence of P.W. 2. P.W. 2 was undisputedly the Grama Rakhi of the village. On a careful reading of the evidence of P.W. 2, it is found that he came to learn from Daitari that the appellant might have killed his aunt. The prosecution had not examined Daitari as it's witness, rather, the defence has examined Daitari (D.W. 1). D.W. 1 (Daitari) of course resiled from his statement of having informed to P.W. 2 that the appellant killed his aunt. The prosecution had not examined Daitari as it's witness, rather, the defence has examined Daitari (D.W. 1). D.W. 1 (Daitari) of course resiled from his statement of having informed to P.W. 2 that the appellant killed his aunt. Therefore, it remains doubtful about the statement of P.W. 2 to the effect that he was informed by Daitari as regards the occurrence, particularly, when Daitari himself has disowned to have communicated to P.W. 2. P.W. 4 is a seizure witness. From his evidence, it has transpired that he along with other villagers called the Grama Rakhi (P.W. 2) and on the information of Daitari that his brother killed the deceased, P.W. 2 was accordingly asked to lodge a report. But however, his evidence does not help the prosecution inasmuch as when Daitari himself had denied to have informed P.W, 2 or P.W. 4. His statement was recorded u/s 164, Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate. But however such statement also does not help the prosecution in any manner. Therefore, the extra judicial confession alleged to have been made by the appellant also becomes doubtful. We are then left with the circumstance of recovery of the blood stained Tangia at the instance of the appellant. In this regard, P.W. 4 who was also a witness to the seizure did not support the prosecution case. He clearly stated not to have seen the appellant in the village on the date of occurrence. He signed on a piece of paper only to oblige the police. The Tangia was then with the police, in that view of the matter, the statement alleged to have been made u/s 27 of the Evidence Act before P.W. 5, the Investigating Officer, also does not inspire any belief. In this case we do not find any incriminating material to connect the axe (M.O.I), which is alleged to have been used as a weapon of offence. 7. In this case, the appellant in his deposition had resiled from his confessional statement which he allegedly made before the Judicial Magistrate. But as observed by the Supreme Court in the case of Madi Ganga (supra), when a confessional statement was later on resiled, the Court has to search for any general corroboration with the said confessional statement. In the present case, we do not notice any other incriminating material which would suggest participation of the appellant with the crime. But as observed by the Supreme Court in the case of Madi Ganga (supra), when a confessional statement was later on resiled, the Court has to search for any general corroboration with the said confessional statement. In the present case, we do not notice any other incriminating material which would suggest participation of the appellant with the crime. There has been no corroborating evidence produced by the prosecution. Therefore, in the aforesaid situation, we are however not inclined to agree with the observation of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge in bringing home the charge against the appellant of having caused the deceased Munga Rana. Accordingly, we hereby set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bolangir and acquit the appellant from the aforesaid charges. He be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. The appeal succeeds. Ch. P.K. Misra, J. 8. I agree.