JUDGMENT : B. Panigrahi, J. - The order of conviction u/s 302, I.P.C. and the sentence to undergo imprisonment for life passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bolangir in Sessions Case No. 80 of 1994 for commission of murder of Bhumi Karmi have been called in question in this appeal. 2. The brevity of the prosecution story as shortly described in course of trial is as follows: That the deceased Bhumi Karmi was the second wife of the Appellant and out of their wedlock seven daughters were born. On 21.2.1994 at about 5.30 P.M. the Appellant came to Tarava Police Station and gave a repot about the missing of his second wife since previous night which the Officer-in-charge, Tarava Police Station (P.W.6) made a station Diary vide No. 385 dated 21.2.1994. Again on 22.2.1994 the Appellant went to the Police Station and reported that the dead body of his wife was found floating inside a ditch of the paddy field of Ganda Rana. On such report, P.W.6 registered a U.D. case bearing No. 2 of 1994 and accordingly took up an enquiry. In course of enquiry he proceeded to the ditch where he found the deadbody floating. With the help of the villagers, he removed the deadbody and held an inquest over it and despatched the same for post mortem examination. On 28th February, 1994 he received the post mortem repot which revealed that there were injuries on the deceased which were ante mortem In nature. It was further revealed that the deceased met a homicidal death due to asphyxia and throttling. P.W.6 having satisfied that the death of the deceased was not accidental but homicidal, therefore, he converted the UD. Case into a case of murder drew up the F.I.R. vide Ext. 7 and registered a case vide P.S. Case No. 11 of 1994 under Sections 302/201, I.P.C. He took up investigation, visited the house of the Appellant, went to the spot, prepared a sketch map, examined the witnesses, seized the wearing apparels of the deceased, arrested the Appellant and his first wife and after completion of investigation, submitted the charges sheet. 3. The trial Court considering all the evidence on record was, however, inclined to acquit the first wife of the Appellant, but convicted the Appellant u/s 302, I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. Hence this appeal. 4. 3. The trial Court considering all the evidence on record was, however, inclined to acquit the first wife of the Appellant, but convicted the Appellant u/s 302, I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. Hence this appeal. 4. The fact that the deceased Bhumi Karmi was the second wife of the Appellant and out of their wedlock seven female children were born has not been disputed. According to the prosecution on getting the report of missing of the deceased on 21.2.1994 U.D. Case was registered and on 22.2.1994 after being informed by the Appellant that the deceased was floating inside a ditch of the paddy field of Ganda Rana, P.W.6 recovered the deadbody, held inquest and sent the same for post mortem examination. After obtaining the medical report that the death of the deceased was homicidal but not suicidal, P.W.6 converted the U.D. Case into a case of murder and registered a P.S. Case u/s 302, I.P.C. 5. Admittedly, there has been no eye witness examined by the prosecution. The commission of murder is alleged to have been committed by the Appellant stealthily without sight of Ors. . In order to sustain a conviction against the Appellant, the prosecution has only relied upon the confessional statement alleged to have been made by the Appellant before P.W.4, a Journalist of Tarava area. True it is that a conviction can be founded on the basis of an extra judicial confession, if such statement, appears to be true, voluntary and made without any duress or coercion. The confessional statement must inspire confidence and voluntary and made out of free will or without any compulsion. P.W.4 stated that the Appellant made such a confessional statement before him when he visited the Police Station for the third time. P.W.4 visited twice before i.e. once to the place where the dead body was lying and on 2nd occasion to the house of the Appellant. On both the occasion the Appellant was said, to have denied about his complicity in the crime! We are at a loss to understand that when the Appellant twice denied to have committed the offence, what promptea him to voluntarily disclose such a statement of having committed the murder of his wife. On the 3rd occasion of visit of P.W.4 was the premises of the Police Station where the Appellant was alleged to have made an extra judicial confession. On the 3rd occasion of visit of P.W.4 was the premises of the Police Station where the Appellant was alleged to have made an extra judicial confession. Another significant factor appearing in this case cannot be lost sight of, to the effect that there has been no motive ascribed against the Appellant for the commission of the offence. 6. Now turning to the evidence of P.W.4 we found that he came to know about the accused for the first time on 22nd, February, 1994. According to P.W.4 on 22.2.1994 the Appellant gave a statement that the deceased had gone to attend the call of nature towards that side and might have fallen inside the ditch due to extreme darkness. But strangely on 24.2.1994 it is said that the Appellant made an extra judicial confession within the premises of the Police Station that he killed his wife. While examining the truthfulness of the statement of P.W.4 reading his statement in cross-examination, we found that he had maintained a diary where he used to take note of the gist of the facts for placing it in News Paper. He had mentioned this fact in the diary, but the diary has not been seized by the police nor produce in Court. Had such diary been produced. It could have been assumed that since he was maintaining day-to-day diary and in ordinary course of nature noted the fact of confession made by the Appellant to have killed the deceased, some reliance could have been placed on such statement. But non-production of the diary would go a long way in disproving the confessional statement alleged to have been made by the Appellant. He has not claimed to have been examined by the police nor disclosed before the Investigating Officer with regard to the extra judicial confession, although the Investigating Officer interrogated him on 25.2.1994. P.W.4 has also not given any satisfactory explanation as to why he did not disclose such statement before the Investigating Officer. P.W.4 also did not assign any reason as to why the Appellant reposed so much confidence on him for making such extra judicial confession. If the extrajudicial confession said to have been made by the Appellant is excluded from consideration, there has been no other credible evidence to connect the Appellant with the crime. P.W.4 also did not assign any reason as to why the Appellant reposed so much confidence on him for making such extra judicial confession. If the extrajudicial confession said to have been made by the Appellant is excluded from consideration, there has been no other credible evidence to connect the Appellant with the crime. Therefore, the statement of P.W.4 with regard to extrajudicial confession is far from legal proof as no credibility could be attached to such statement of P.W.4. We are, therefore, not in a position to uphold the order of conviction and sentence passed against the Appellant u/s 302, I.P.C. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the conviction and sentence passed thereunder are hereby set aside. He be set at liberty forthwith. P.K. Misra, J. 7. I agree. Final Result : Allowed