P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Ms. Sofia Begum, the learned counsel representing the appellant by way of legal aid and the learned Additional Public prosecutor Sri Md. Osman Saheed. ( 2 ) THIS is a case where conviction was recorded as against the appellant/sole accused in S. C. No. 309 of 2000 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Adilabad, just on the strength of the extra judicial confession alleged to have been made by the accused to P. Ws. 1 and 2. ( 3 ) THE Circle Inspector of Police, Nirmal filed a charge sheet against the accused alleging that on 6-4-2000 at about 10 p. m. , the accused caused death of his wife by dousing her in kerosene and setting her on fire in the rented house owned by P. W. 4 at nirmal. ( 4 ) THE case of the prosecution is that sathevva (hereinafter referred to as the deceased forthe purpose of convenience) is the daughter of P. W. 3, a resident of laxmanchanda and she was married to the accused about four or five years back and they were living in a rented room owned by p. W. 4 at Nirmal. It is also the case of the prosecution that the accused used to quarrel with the deceased on the ground that she was having illicit intimacy with others and that the deceased informed the same to her father, P. W. 3. While so, on 6-4-2000 at about 10 p. m. , when the accused returned home from his duty, he found the deceased in a compromising position with one Dattu and therefore, the accused doused the deceased in kerosene and set her fire and that she was caught in fire and the flames also caught the room in which the incident had occurred and consequently, the flames had emanated posing danger to the surroundings. One Rasheed had passed on the information about the fire accident to the fire Station, Nirmal over telephone. P. W. 2 working as Head Fireman received the message and passed on the same to P. W. 1, the Station Fire Officer, who was in his house at that time, and on receipt of the said information, P. W. 1 rushed to the fire station and proceeded to the spot with fire vehicle and extinguished the fire. After extinguishing the fire, P. Ws. After extinguishing the fire, P. Ws. 1 and 2 found the dead body of the deceased in a totally burnt condition. It is also the version of the prosecution that the accused was present at the spot as if nothing had happened inspite of the death of his wife and hence, P. W. 1 entertained suspicion and questioned the accused persistently, whereupon the accused made extra judicial confession to the effect that he had seen his wife in compromising position with another male, and that on seeing the accused, the paramour of his wife had pushed him and ran away and in a bit of anger and wrath, he had beat his wife and doused her in kerosene and put her on fire. P. W. 1 informed the matter to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Nirmal over telephone and P. W. 10, the Sub-Inspector of police, having received the said information proceeded to the spot where P. W. 1 gave complaint Ex. P-1 to him. Hence, Crime no. 46 of 2000 was registered under section 302 I. P. C. The learned Judge on appreciation of the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 10 and Ex. P-1 to P-6, ultimately held the accused guilty of an offence under Section 304 part-l I. P. C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of eight years. ( 5 ) SOFIA Begum, learned Counsel representing the appellant would submit that extra judicial confession is a weak type of evidence and except the statements alleged to have been made to P. Ws. 1 and 2, the extra judicial confession, absolutely there is no other material available on record and in the absence of any corroboration, on the strength of such statements alone, conviction cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel also would submit that there is discrepancy and variation even in the alleged extra judicial confession said to have been made to p. Ws. 1 and 2 by the accused. The learned counsel also pointed out that the medical evidence and the postmortem certificate also would throw some suspicion on the version of the prosecution and on the strength of such evidence, to convict the accused under section 304 Part-l I. P. C. definitely would be unjust and illegal. 1 and 2 by the accused. The learned counsel also pointed out that the medical evidence and the postmortem certificate also would throw some suspicion on the version of the prosecution and on the strength of such evidence, to convict the accused under section 304 Part-l I. P. C. definitely would be unjust and illegal. ( 6 ) PER contra, learned Additional Public prosecutor would contend that P. W. 1 is a responsible officer and there can be no animosity to P. W. 1 to make such a false statement against the accused. The evidence of P. W. 1 is so natural and convincing that p. W. 1 after reaching the spot, entertained suspicion as to how the incident could have happened and then he persistently insisted the accused, and on such insistence, the accused ultimately made the said statement. The learned Counsel also would contend that it is just but natural when the husband/ accused who came to the house had seen his wife/deceased in a compromising position with another male, definitely would have resorted to what had been stated by the version of the prosecution and hence, absolutely there is no doubt whatsoever that the prosecution was able to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The learned Counsel also had explained the discrepancy in the postmortem certificate and the time gap in this regard. ( 7 ) HEARD the Counsel and perused the material available on record. ( 8 ) P. W. 1 is the Station Fire Officer, who had deposed that on 6-4-2000 during night, p. W. 2, who was incharge of the station received a phone call that a fire accident had taken place near Golden Function Plaza at nirmal and the same was informed to him and he rushed to the station and with his team of officials went to the spot with the fire vehicle and they found the flames from the house of the accused and household articles being burnt and they controlled the fire and found that the wife of the accused dead. They found collection of mob and enquired about the fire accident. The accused who lost his wife in the fire had remained silent as if nothing had happened to him and hence, he suspected the accused and put him persistent questions as to how the accident had occurred. They found collection of mob and enquired about the fire accident. The accused who lost his wife in the fire had remained silent as if nothing had happened to him and hence, he suspected the accused and put him persistent questions as to how the accident had occurred. This witness deposed that the accused ultimately informed him that at about 10 p. m. , when he returned from his duty, he found the deceased in compromising position with another male and that on seeing him, the paramour of his wife pushed him and went away and in bit of anger and wrath, he had beaten his wife and put her on fire after dousing her in kerosene. This witness further deposed that he informed the matter to the nirmal Police and the Sub-Inspector of Police came to the scene and that he lodged ex. P-1 report before the police. No doubt, it was suggested to this witness that the accused did not make such extra judicial confession at all, which had been denied by this witness. Ex. P-1 reads as hereunder:"i am to submit that I am working as a fire Officer since 3-2-1994. Today i. e. on 6-4-2000 at 21. 55 hours a phone call is received from S. T. D. booth No. 45818 of Nirmal from Sri Rasheed Sai, Golden plaza Function Hall, Nirmal to the effect that at the distance of 50 yards from function plaza in the opposite side, a fire accident occurred and asking us to come at early point of time. Immediately the duty officer along with duty staff and vehicle started to the fire ground. On information about the same, I rushed to the place of accident. By that time my staff put off the entire flames. On observation of the place of incident, in a corner in the house, I found a dead body of a woman. Meanwhile, lot of people gathered there. When I enquired thokala Babu who is her husband (Husband of the deceased) stated hat "i poured kerosene on her and killed her. She deserves punishment as she slept with another person". This had happened at about 21. 15 hours as stated by the people there. Therefore, you are requested to take necessary action. " in Ex. P-1, it is stated that when P. W. 1 enquired the accused, he stated that "i poured kerosene on herand killed her. She deserves punishment as she slept with another person". This had happened at about 21. 15 hours as stated by the people there. Therefore, you are requested to take necessary action. " in Ex. P-1, it is stated that when P. W. 1 enquired the accused, he stated that "i poured kerosene on herand killed her. She deserves punishment as she slept with another person. " ( 9 ) P. W. 2 is the Head Fire Man, who was on duty when a telephonic message was received about the fire accident and informed the same to P. W. 1, who immediately came to the Fire Station, and all of them reached the spot and found the house of accused on fire and after extinguishing the fire, they found the dead body of the lady. P. W. 1 questioned the accused and the accused stated that as his wife was having illegal contacts with a person and therefore, he burnt the deceased by dousing her in kerosene. It is no doubt true that P. W. 2 did not exactly repeat the statements alleged to have been made by the accused to P. W. 1, but in substance commencing from Ex. P-1 and also the evidence of P. W. 1 in relation to extra judicial confession and also P. W. 2, is to the effect that the accused had poured kerosene and burnt the deceased in view of the fact that the accused had seen the deceased in a compromising position and sleeping with yet another person on the fateful day. ( 10 ) P. W. 3 is the father of the deceased. P. W. 4, no doubt, was declared as hostile witness. ( 11 ) P. W. 5 deposed about Ex. P-3, panchanama of the scene of the offence. ( 12 ) P. W. 6 deposed about the Mandal revenue Officer conducting inquest over the dead body of the deceased and this witness signing Ex. P-4 the inquest report. ( 13 ) P. W. 7 is the Mandal Revenue Officer. On requisition from the police, he had conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P. W. 6 and another and he orally enquired P. Ws. P-4 the inquest report. ( 13 ) P. W. 7 is the Mandal Revenue Officer. On requisition from the police, he had conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P. W. 6 and another and he orally enquired P. Ws. 1 to 3 and others during the inquest and on hearing them and observing the dead body, he concluded that the deceased died due to the burn injuries received by her. Ex. P-4 is the inquest report signed by this witness. ( 14 ) P. W. 8 is the Circle Inspector of Police, who filed charge sheet. This witness also deposed about the verification of the investigation done by the then Sub-Inspector and visiting the scene of offence and recording the statements of certain witnesses. This witness deposed that P. W. 4 stated before him as in Ex. P-2. ( 15 ) P. W. 9 is the Civil Assistant Surgeon, who deposed that the body was totally burnt beyond recognition and the dead body was having 100% burn injuries and the deceased died due to shock on account of 100% mixed burns. Ex. P-5 is the postmortem certificate issued by him. ( 16 ) P. W. 10 is the Sub-Inspector of Police. On receipt of Ex. P-1 report from P. W. 1, sri S. A. Faiz, Head Constable registered the case as Crime No. 46 of 2000 under section 302 I. P. C. and issued Ex. P-6, F. I. R. and this witness had identified the said Faiz s signature on Exs. P-1 and P-6. ( 17 ) IT is no doubt that extra judicial confession is a weak type of evidence and normally it requires some corroboration. In Sitaram Vishnu Chalke v. State of maharashtra, a Division Bench of the bombay High Court held that extra judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and court would normally expect sufficient and reliable corroboration type of evidence. In Piara Singh v. State of Punjab, while dealing with extra judicial confession and necessity of corroboration, the Apex Court held that law does not require that the evidence of an extra judicial confession should in all cases be corroborated. Where the extra judicial confession was proved by an independent witness, who was a responsible officer and who bore no animus against the appellants. Where the extra judicial confession was proved by an independent witness, who was a responsible officer and who bore no animus against the appellants. There was hardly any justification for the Sessions Judge to disbelieve the evidence of such a witness particularly when the extra judicial confession was corroborated by the recovery of an empty cartridge from the p!ace of occurrence. In Ratan Gond v. State of Bihar, it was held that usually and as a matter of caution courts require some material corroboration to an extra judicial confession statement, corroboration which connects the accused person with the crime in question. In Mulk Raj v. State of U. P. \ it was held that an extra-judicial confession, if voluntary, can be relied upon by the Court along with other evidence in convicting the accused. The confession will have to be proved just like any other fact. The value of the evidence as to the confession just like any other evidence, depends upon the veracity of the witness to whom it is made. It is true that the court requires the witness to give the actual words used by the accused as nearly possible, but it is not an invariable rule that the Court should not accept the evidence, if not the actual words but the substance were given. It isforthe Court having regard to the credibility of the witness, his capacity to understand the language in which the accused made the confession, to accept the evidence or not. In Kishore Chand v. State of H. P. , it was 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 its falsity. But in the process of the proof of the alleged confession, the court has to be satisfied that it is a voluntary one and does not appear to be result of inducement, threat or promise envisaged under S. 24 or was brought about in suspicious circumstances to circumvent Ss. 25 and 26. Therefore, the Court has to look into the surrounding circumstances and to find whether the extra-judicial confession is not inspired by any improper or collateral consideration or circumvention of the law suggesting that it may not be true one. 25 and 26. Therefore, the Court has to look into the surrounding circumstances and to find whether the extra-judicial confession is not inspired by any improper or collateral consideration or circumvention of the law suggesting that it may not be true one. For this purpose the Court must scrutinize all the relevant facts such as the person to whom the confession is made, the time and place of making it, the circumstances in which it was made and finally the actual words used by the accused. Extra-judicial confession if found to be voluntary can be relied upon by the court along with other evidence on record. Therefore, even the extra-judicial confession will also have to be proved like any other fact. The value of the evidence as to the confession depends upon the veracity of the witness to whom it is made and the circumstances in which it came to be made and the actual words used by the accused. Sometimes it may not be possible to the witness to reproduce the actual words in which the confession was made. For that reason the law insists on recording the statement by a judicial Magistrate after administering all necessary warnings to the accused that it would be used as evidence against him. Section 26 provides that no confession made by any person while he is under custody of the police officer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of Magistrate, shall be proved as against such person. Therefore, the confession made by an accused person to a police officer is irrelevant by operation of section 25 and it shall not be proved against him. Likewise, the confession made by accused while he is in the custody of the police shall not be proved against him unless it is made in the immediate presence of the magistrate, by operation of Section 26. ( 18 ) IT is no doubt true that in the present case Ex. P-1 itself was lodged by P. W. 1, a responsible officer. There is no specific animosity or motive attributed to P. W. 1. The evidence of P. W. 1 is so natural that at the time of extinguishing the fire since he got some suspicion, he persistently insisted the accused and on such insistence, the accused had made the said statement and in substance the same was corroborated by p. W. 2. The evidence of P. W. 1 is so natural that at the time of extinguishing the fire since he got some suspicion, he persistently insisted the accused and on such insistence, the accused had made the said statement and in substance the same was corroborated by p. W. 2. ( 19 ) P. W. 2 is also an official who is totally disinterested since both P. Ws. 1 and 2 had gone to the spot for the purpose of extinguishing the fire. The conduct of the accused also may have to be considered. P. W. 1 specifically deposed that by seeing the behaviour of P. W. 1 (accused) he got suspicion and then he posed repeated questions as to how the fire accident had taken place. Taking into consideration, the conduct of the accused and also the fact that both P. Ws. 1 and 2 are totally disinterested persons in the episode and there is no specific motive attributed to these witnesses to make such a statement to the effect that such confession had been made by the accused, this Court is of the opinion that the learned judge is well justified in recording the findings placing reliance on the said extra judicial confession. It is no doubt true that it would be always proper that the exact words which had been spoken while making extra judicial confession had to be recorded. But, however, p. W. 1 had deposed clearly on this aspect and the evidence of P. W. 2 in substance had corroborated the evidence of P. W. 1 in this regard. Taking into consideration the fact that these are official witnesses totally unconcerned and disinterested in the episode of the prosecution, the reliance placed by the learned judge in the facts and circumstances definitely is sustainable and hence, the findings are hereby confirmed. It is an unfortunate case where the accused had involved himself in such an act being enraged having seen his wife in a compromising position with her paramour even as per the prosecution. Taking the overall facts and circumstances into consideration, no doubt the conviction under Section 304 part-1 I. P. C. as such is hereby confirmed. But, however, the sentence is hereby reduced for a period of four years taking the peculiar facts and circumstances into consideration. Exceptthe modification of sentence, in all other respects, the findings are hereby confirmed. Taking the overall facts and circumstances into consideration, no doubt the conviction under Section 304 part-1 I. P. C. as such is hereby confirmed. But, however, the sentence is hereby reduced for a period of four years taking the peculiar facts and circumstances into consideration. Exceptthe modification of sentence, in all other respects, the findings are hereby confirmed. ( 20 ) THE Criminal Appeal shall stand dismissed subject to the above modification.