BILAL NAZKI, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. ( 2 ) THIS is an appeal filed by the accused in s. C. No. 99/2000 on the file of the Sessions judge, Srikakulam. The appellant was tried for an offence under Section 302 IPC on the basis of the allegation that on 20-10-1999 at about 6 p. m. he had committed the murder of one Annepu Ramana. He pleaded not guilty. Prosecution examined 10 witnesses and exhibited 29 documents. ( 3 ) BEFORE mentioning the relevant facts on the basis of which the prosecution was launched, it may be pointed out that in this case there was no direct evidence and the prosecution tried to establish the case against the appellant on the basis of circumstantial evidence. ( 4 ) THE allegations against the accused were that the deceased was married to him and he suspected that his wife had illicit relation with the accused. Six months prior to the death of the deceased, his wife had left his company and had gone to her parents house due to the differences with her husband, and lived there for 5 or 6 months. Subsequently, accused and P. W. 3 went to the house of the parents of the wife of the deceased and brought her back. The deceased thereafter started living with his wife in a rented house which was adjacent to the house of the accused. After some time P. W. 3 visited the house of the deceased. She did not find the deceased there, but found the accused in a compromising position with the wife of the deceased. She informed this to the deceased and his relations. Thereupon the deceased and some others brought the accused, tied him to a telephone pole and beat him. Then on the advice of the villagers, he was released. The accused left the place threatening them. Subsequently, the accused got a case filed against the deceased through the wife of the deceased. Police arrested the deceased and kept him in jail for 10 days. On 20-10-1999 the deceased came back from his work at 5 p. m. He went to "vadada" stream for having a bath, which was his usual practice. But on that day he did not return. On that day while p. Ws. Police arrested the deceased and kept him in jail for 10 days. On 20-10-1999 the deceased came back from his work at 5 p. m. He went to "vadada" stream for having a bath, which was his usual practice. But on that day he did not return. On that day while p. Ws. 2 to 4 were returning from their fields saw the accused in between "gedda" and the village sitting under a banyan tree with a stick in his hand. As the deceased did not return, P. W. 1 went to the stream but could not trace him. They searched for two days, but could not find him. After two days the dead body of the deceased was found on a sand heap with injuries on his head and body. There was no clothes on the body. Thereafter P. W. 1 lodged a report before the police. ( 5 ) WITH these factual assertions made by the Prosecution, the Prosecution tried to establish the case on the basis of the following circumstances - (a) the deceased suspected that the accused had illicit relations with his wife, (b) the deceased was last seen going towards the stream for having a bath whereas the accused was seen at a place on the way to that stream with a stick in his hand sitting under a banyan tree, (c) the accused made an extra-judicial confession before P. W. 6, (d) the accused had absconded and was not traceable, and (e) the recovery of M. Os. 1 and 2, being the towel and stick. ( 6 ) COMING to the first circumstance that there was motive for the accused to commit the murder of the deceased, it may be pointed out that there is no sufficient evidence on this count. P. W. 1, who is the father of the deceased, had stated in his statement that his son and his daughter-in-law had disputes on the ground that his daughter-in-law had illicit relation with the accused, and six months prior to the death of his son, his daughter-in- law had left the company of his son and had gone to her parents house due to the differences with her husband. Subsequently the accused and P. W. 3 brought her back and the wife of the deceased and the deceased were living in a house adjacent to the house of the accused. Subsequently the accused and P. W. 3 brought her back and the wife of the deceased and the deceased were living in a house adjacent to the house of the accused. Almost similar statement has been made by P. W. 3 that there were disputes between the deceased and the wife of the deceased because the deceased suspected that his wife had illicit relation with the accused. The wife of the deceased left him and went to her parents house. P. W. 3, accompanied by the accused, went to the house of the parents of the wife of the deceased and brought her back. It is also stated by the witnesses that some months prior to the occurrence, the deceased had tied the accused to a telephone pole because of this suspected relationship and that the accused had approached the police and the deceased was kept in custody for 10 days. This has not been substantiated by any evidence. If there was a case filed before the police and the deceased was kept in custody for 10 days, its very easy for the Prosecution to establish that circumstance. No evidence was led except the statement of P. W. 1 in this connection. Secondly it is inherently unbelievable that a person who suspects the character of his wife and believes that a particular person has illicit relationship with her and such a suspicion results in her desertion from him, and the same person, who is suspected of having illicit relations with the wife, would be sent to bring her back. It is also not natural or believable that after the wife returned, the deceased would take a house on rent just adjacent to the house of the accused. Therefore, we do not believe and we do not think that the prosecution was able to establish the motive as it sought to establish in the present case. ( 7 ) THE second circumstance relates to the fact that the deceased went to the stream for having a bath and the accused was seen at a place on the way to that stream with a stick in his hand sitting under a banyan tree. Even if this is taken to be proved, this cannot be a circumstance connecting the accused with the guilt. Even if this is taken to be proved, this cannot be a circumstance connecting the accused with the guilt. It is not unusual for a villager to sit under a tree having a stick in a hand, because villagers use stick for various purposes connected to their agricultural profession. Therefore, in our view, this circumstance alone would not be sufficient to convict a person for the offence like murder. ( 8 ) THE third circumstance is extra-judicial confession. This evidence of extra-judicial confession has to be appreciated in the light of the circumstances in which the FIR was filed and the contents of the FIR. When the deceased disappeared after going to have a bath, for two days nobody approached police that the deceased was missing. It is only after the body of the deceased was found, P. W. 1 approached police and filed the report- ex. P-1 which is reproduced below. "on 20-10-99 evening at the time of about 6 o clock my elder son Annepu Ramana came from Srikakulam from mason work and went to the Desigadda for bath and when he has not yet returned, on the same night at the time about 8. 30 myself, my two sons, my sons-in-law Yenni pentayya got together and we went towards Gedda and searched, but not found anywhere. When we also got down in the gedda and searched but not traced. On 21-10-99 also we searched about our son but no use. Today i. e. , on 22-10-99 morning at the time about 9"o clock when my 2nd son Gonvinda Rao had seen the dead body of my elder son lying on the heap of sand as prostrate at the old bridge between Gopinagar and Ragolu situated in Vadadagedda and informed, myself went and seen and identified that he is my son. I pray that the enquiry may be conducted about the death of my son and perform justice. " ( 9 ) NOWHERE in this report no suspicion has been shown by P. W. 1 about the involvement of the accused in the case. If he had any suspicion against the accused, FIR was the first chance for him to make this suspicionpublic. Thereafter inquestwas held. In the inquest, witnesses were examined, but no witness expressed any suspicion about the role of the accused. It appears that the police investigated the case for about 20 days. If he had any suspicion against the accused, FIR was the first chance for him to make this suspicionpublic. Thereafter inquestwas held. In the inquest, witnesses were examined, but no witness expressed any suspicion about the role of the accused. It appears that the police investigated the case for about 20 days. They had no cluein the matter. There was no evidence collected by them against accused. They had not even entertained a doubt that the accused was involved in the offence. Even then the investigating agency comes up with an extra-judicial confession. We do not know what could be the reason for the accused to make an extra-judicial confession after 20 days of the occurrence when there was not even suspicion against him. This extra-judicial confession as such does not inspire confidence of the Court. We have varied reasons for not believing this extra- judicial confession. This extra-judicial confession was made before the Sarpanch of the village in the presence of P. W. 6-the village Administrative Officer. P. W. 6 was examined, but the Sarpanch was not examined. Sarpanch was the most material witness, because the accused had gone to him allegedly to make a confession. Although the confession is alleged to have been voluntarily made orally, but the confession was reduced to writing and bears the signature of the Sarpanch as well as the v. A. O. But they did not think it proper to take the thumb impressions or the signature of the accused. If the accused made a voluntary confession before P. W. 6 and the sarpanch and it was reduced to writing, then the natural conduct would demand that the signature or the thumb impression of the accused was obtained. P. W. 6 gave no reasons for not obtaining the signature or thumb impression of the accused on the confession. The extra-judicial confession has to be tested in the light of other circumstances and the whole conspectus of the prosecution case. The Supreme Court in Sanjya v. State (NCT of delhi), though it was satisfied with the evidence of P. W. 5 before whom the extra judicial confession had been made, but still it went through other evidence. The extra-judicial confession has to be tested in the light of other circumstances and the whole conspectus of the prosecution case. The Supreme Court in Sanjya v. State (NCT of delhi), though it was satisfied with the evidence of P. W. 5 before whom the extra judicial confession had been made, but still it went through other evidence. The Supreme court took this extra-judicial confession for consideration with great amount of caution, while stating, "the effect of the statement of the accused before the witness would be tested in the light of other circumstances and the whole conspectus of the prosecution case". Therefore it will not be proper to base conviction solely on the basis of a statement made as extra-judicial confession. Again the supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. M. N. Ramdas stated that the extra judicial confession made before a stranger is an unnatural conduct on the part of the accused, but that cannot be a ground for discarding such evidence, however the Court has to remain on guard and see whether there was sufficient evidence. Similarly in Gura Singh v. State of Rajasthan the Supreme Court laid down the law in para 6,"6. It is settled position of law that extra judicial confession, if true and voluntary, it can be relied upon by the Court to convict the accused for the commission of the crime alleged. Despite inherent weakness of extra judicial confession as an item of evidence, it cannot be ignored when shown that such confession was made before a person who has no reason to state falsely and to whom it is made in the circumstances which tend to support the statement. Relying upon an earlier judgment in Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of Vindhya Pradesh, 1954 SCR 1098 : ( AIR 1954 SC 322 ), this Court again in maghar Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1975 sc 1320 : (1975 Crl. L. J. 1102) held that the evidence in the form of extra judicial confession made by the accused to witnesses cannot be always termed to be a tainted evidence. Corroboration of such evidence is required only by way of abundant caution. If the Court believe the witness before whom the confession is made and is satisfied that the confession was true and voluntarily made, then the conviction can be founded on such evidence alone. Corroboration of such evidence is required only by way of abundant caution. If the Court believe the witness before whom the confession is made and is satisfied that the confession was true and voluntarily made, then the conviction can be founded on such evidence alone. In Narayan Singh v. State of M. P. , AIR 1985 SC 1678 : (1985 Crl. L. J. 1862) this Court cautioned that it is not open to the Court trying the criminal case to start with presumption that extra judicial confession is always a weak type of evidence. It would depend on the nature of the circumstances, the time when the confession is made and the credibility of the witnesses who speak for such a confession. The retraction of extra judicial confession which is a usual phenomenon in criminal cases would by itself not weaken the case of the prosecution based upon such a confession. In Kishore Chand v. State of m. P. , AIR 1990 SC 2140 : (1990 Crl. L. J. 2289) this Court held that an unambiguous extra judicial confession possesses high probative value force as it emanates from the person who committed the crime and is admissible in evidence provided it is free from suspicion and suggestion of any falsity. However, before relying on the alleged confession, the Court has to be satisfied that it is voluntary and is not the result of inducement, threat orpromise envisaged under Section 24 of the Evidence Act or was brought about in suspicious circumstances to circumvent Sections 25 and 26. The Court is required to look into the surrounding circumstances to find out as to whether such confession is not inspired by any improper or collateral consideration or circumvention of law suggesting that it may not be true. All relevant circumstances such as the person to whom the confession is made, the time and place of making it, the circumstances in which it was made have to be scrutinised. To the same effect is the judgment in Baldev Raj v. State of Haryana, air 1991 SC 37 : (1990 Crl. L. J. 2643 ). After referring to the judgment in Piara singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1977 SC 2274 : (1977 Crl. To the same effect is the judgment in Baldev Raj v. State of Haryana, air 1991 SC 37 : (1990 Crl. L. J. 2643 ). After referring to the judgment in Piara singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1977 SC 2274 : (1977 Crl. L. J. 1941), this Court in Madan gopal Kakkad v. Naval Dubey, (1992) 3 JT (SC) 270: (1992 AIR SCW1480), held that the extra judicial confession which is not obtained by coercion, promise of favour or false hope and is plenary in character and voluntary in nature can be made the basis for conviction even without corroboration". ( 10 ) GOING by all these judgments, it is necessary to see the intrinsic value of the confession to come to a conclusion whether it inspires confidence of the Court, but we have mentioned the reasons hereinabove for not placing reliance on this extra judicial confession. Therefore, this circumstance cannot be held to have been proved against the accused. ( 11 ) THE fourth circumstance is with regard to the alleged absconding of the accused from the scene of offence. Since there is nothing on record to show that he was a suspect in the case, we do not think that at any point of time he could have been accused of having absconded. The Investigating officer also did not say that he was absconding. ( 12 ) THE last circumstance relates to the recovery of M. Os. 1 and 2. Needless to say, m. 0. 1 is a towel and M. 0. 2 is a stick. Towel and stick are so common that on the basis of the recovery of a towel and a stick alone, no conviction can be sustained. ( 13 ) IN the result, appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence are set aside. Accused-appellant be set at libety forthwith, if not required in any other case Fine amount, if paid, be refunded to him.