P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD, Mr. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel representing the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. ( 2 ) THE simple and sole question which had been elaborately argued is that whether on the basis of the alleged extra judicial confession said to have been made by the accused to P. W.-1 V. A. O. in the absence of any other corroboration and especially in the light of the doubt cast in view of the medical evidence, can conviction be sustained on such uncorroborated testimony of P. W. 1. Both the counsel made elaborate submissions on this aspect. Sri Praveen kumar, on one hand contending that on the strength of such evidence the conviction cannot be sustained in the absence of any corroboration and strong reliance was also placed on a decision of the Appex Court in state of Haryana v. Jagbir Singh and another and the learned Additional Public prosecutor submitting that VAO being an independent person having no animosity as against appellant-accused, the finding recorded by the learned judge to be confirmed. ( 3 ) THIS Criminal Appeal is filed by the sole appellant-accused as against the judgment of the Principal Sessions Judge, nalgonda in S. C. No. 153 of 1996 on 14th september, 1998. The accused was tried by the learned Sessions Judge for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, but however, he was found guilty under section 304 Part 1 IPC and was sentenced to suffer R. I. for a period of seven years and also to pay fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to suffer S. I. for one week. ( 4 ) THE substance of the charge against the appellant-accused is that on 25-09-1994 at about 10. 30 AM at Ekalagutta, the accused caused the death of his wife laxmamma. (hereinafter referred to as deceased ). ( 5 ) THE case of the prosecution, in brief, is as hereunder: p. W. 6 and P. W. 7 are the parents and p. W. 8 is the brother of deceased. About six months prior to the date of incident, the marriage of the deceased was performed with the accused. At the time of marriage rs. 8,000/- cash, 2 tulas of gold and 40 tulas of silver was given. Subsequently after the marriage the deceased visited her parents house and informed them that accused was demanding her Rs. About six months prior to the date of incident, the marriage of the deceased was performed with the accused. At the time of marriage rs. 8,000/- cash, 2 tulas of gold and 40 tulas of silver was given. Subsequently after the marriage the deceased visited her parents house and informed them that accused was demanding her Rs. 50,000/- and if not paid he threatened to kill her. However, she was sent back to the accused convincing her that they would pursue the matter. About six days later, P. Ws. 6, 7 and 8 received the death intimation of deceased. While the matter stood thus, it is alleged by p. W. 1 that on 25-09-1994 accused made an extra judicial confession before him that as the deceased abused him, he took a stone and hurled at her and when he carried her on the way she died. On the basis of it on the next day i. e. on 26-09-1994 P. W. 1 gave a report, which is marked as Ex. P-1. On the basis of said Ex. P-1 report on 26-09-1994 at about 11 AM P. W. 15 the S. 1 of Police registered the same as case in Crime No. 32 of 1994 under Section 302 IPC and issued fir which is marked as Ex. P-10. Therefore p. W. 16 the Inspector of Police Choutuppal took up further investigation and held inquest over the dead body in the presence of pw 10, which is marked as Ex. P-11. He examined and recorded the statements of p. Ws 1 to 4 ad 6 to 8. He then visited the scene of offence and conducted panchanama and seized a towel and broken bangles in the presence of P. W 10 and 11, which is marked as Ex. P-8. On 26-9-1994 on a requisition, P. W. 14 Civil Surgeon Assistant surgeon, Government Hospital, Bhongiri conducted autopsy over the dead-body of deceased and opined that the cause of death was due to asphyxia by throttling. Ex. P-9 is the postmortem report. On 13-10-1994 P. W. 16 arrested the accused and in pursuance of his statement at his instance a boulder was seized under ex. P-12 and 13 panchanama. On receiving the relevant documents and on completion of investigation P. W. 16 filed the chargesheet. ( 6 ) THE plea of the accused is one of denial. P-9 is the postmortem report. On 13-10-1994 P. W. 16 arrested the accused and in pursuance of his statement at his instance a boulder was seized under ex. P-12 and 13 panchanama. On receiving the relevant documents and on completion of investigation P. W. 16 filed the chargesheet. ( 6 ) THE plea of the accused is one of denial. In support of the case of the prosecution, Prosecution examined sixteen witnesses and got marked Ex. P-1 to P-13. ( 7 ) THE learned Judge on appreciation of the evidence available on record came to the conclusion that the accused is guilty of an offence under Section 304 Part-1 IPC and accordingly recorded conviction and sentenced him for seven years R. I. and payment of a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to suffer S. I. for one week. ( 8 ) THE evidence of P. W. 1 alone is crucial. Apart from the evidence of P. W. 1 no doubt the medical evidence also may assume some importance and the same would be discussed at the appropriate stage. P. W. 1 vao deposed that the accused belongs to his village and the wife of the accused died on 25-9-1994 and he came to know the death of wife of accused at about 4. 00 PM. The dead-body of the wife of the accused was in front of the house of accused and he , went and saw and there was bleeding from the mouth and he enquired the people who gathered there and that they informed him that the deceased died due to stomach ache. This witness also deposed that the wife of the accused was said to have gone to eagala gutta to collect fuel (fire wood), she developed stomachache at that place and accused brought her dead. At about 6 or 7 PM P. W. 1 sent a word to the accused and the accused came to the house. Then he questioned him. This witness deposed that the accused admitted before him that the deceased abused him, thereafter he took a stone and hurled at her and when he was carrying her on the way she died. This happened on 25-09-1994 and on the next day he went to the Police Station and presented a report Ex. P-1 This is the evidence of P. W 1. This happened on 25-09-1994 and on the next day he went to the Police Station and presented a report Ex. P-1 This is the evidence of P. W 1. A careful scrutiny of evidence of P. W. 1 would go to show that when he visited the spot, he was informed that she died due to stomachache. For the reasons best know, it appears he called the accused and questioned him and a statement was made to him that the accused admitted before him that the deceased abused him and hence he had taken a stone and hurled at her and when he was carrying her on the way she died. This is the extra judicial confession on which strong reliance was placed by the prosecution. Submissions at length were made by the defence counsel, counsel representing the appellant, that this statement would be highly insufficient, since extra judicial confession itself is a weak type of evidence. ( 9 ) P. W. 14 is Civil Assistant Surgeon, who deposed that on 26-09-1994 she received a requisition from S. H. O. Pochampally P. S to conduct autopsy over the body of Drugamma Alias Laxmamma. The body was identified by P. C. 407 of Pochamapally P. S and she commenced that postmortem examination at 10. 00 AM on 27-09-1994. She deposed that rigor mortis is present, eyes and mouth were normal. There was a contusion mark on the left side of the neck. There was another contusion mark on the left side of the chest. Abdomen was normal. This witness also deposed that a rose colour nylon saree was found on the body. A blue colour blouse was found and a violet colour petty coat was found and there were two anklets to the legs Toe rings were found to the legs. There were seven bangles to the left hand and 8 bangles to the right hand and nose stud was found. There was sacred thread around the neck and the properties were handed over to the deceased parents. On cutting open of the body; brain was congested and Lungs were congested; heart was normal; Kidneys were normal; liver was normal and in the stomach semi degested food was present up to 200 gms; hyoid bone was found fractured and it was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory. It was sent to decide whether the injury was antemortem or the post mortem. It was sent to decide whether the injury was antemortem or the post mortem. A Report was received from Director of F. S. L. stating that it was ante-mortem fracture of bone. The time of death was 36 to 40 hours prior to postmortem examination. The death occurred due to asphyxia by throttling. This witness also deposed that she issued Ex. P. 9 postmortem certificate and she concluded postmortem examination at 12. 00 noon. In the cross examination this witness deposed that the injuries cannot be caused with the stone shown to her and the deceased might have died one or two hours after taking food. She further deposed that genital organs were normal and the injury on the chest was superficial injury. A copy of inquest report was sent along with the requisition. This witness further deposed that hyoid bone gets fractured only when pressure is applied on two sides and pressure must have been applied from both sides as there was fracture of Hyoid bone. The external injuries were not found. There was no injury on the neck. She did not mention the colour of bangles. She also deposed that death is not possible due to sustaining injury Ng. 1. Thus, this evidence of P. W. 14 would assume lot of importance especially in the light of the extra judicial confession alleged to have been made by the accused to P. W1. The said extra judicial confession is to the effected that "thereafter, he took a stone and hurled at her, and when he was carrying her on the way she died". This extra judicial confession alleged to have been made by the accused to P. W. 1 is totally distorted by the medical evidence. Apart from this aspect of the matter, except the evidence on P. W. 1 there is no other evidence to corroborate this extra judicial confession. Strong reliance was placed on State of Haryana v. Jagbir Singh and another (supra) in this regard. ( 10 ) P. WS. 2,3,4 and 5 were declared hostile. Apart from this aspect of the matter, except the evidence on P. W. 1 there is no other evidence to corroborate this extra judicial confession. Strong reliance was placed on State of Haryana v. Jagbir Singh and another (supra) in this regard. ( 10 ) P. WS. 2,3,4 and 5 were declared hostile. P. W. 6 is the father in law of the accused, who no doubt deposed about certain family affairs and this witness deposed that the dead-body was found at the house of the accused, blood was coming out of the nostrils and the accused was not at the house and he had also noticed blackening on the left side of the chest portion indicating some injury and he suspected the accused for the death of his daughter. ( 11 ) P. W. 7 is the wife of P. W. 2 and she had also deposed in the same fashion as p. W. 6 had deposed expressing suspicion as against the accused. ( 12 ) P. W. 8 is the sister of the deceased and she also deposed in the same fashion as deposed by P. Ws. 6 and 7. ( 13 ) P. W. 9 was declared hostile. Likewise p. W. 10 who was examined in relation to the conduct of panchanama also declared hostile. ( 14 ) P. W. 11 no doubt deposed about the preparation of the sketch of scene and this witness signing and the panchanama ex. P. 7, sketch Ex. P. 8 and also seizure of mos 1 and 2. P. W. 12 who was examined in relation to the confessional panchanam and recovery, was declared hostile. P. W. 13 was also declared hostile. P. W. 15 is the investigating Officer. ( 15 ) ON the strength of this evidence, findings in detail had been recorded and believing the extra judicial confession alleged to have been made by the accused to P. W. 1 and taking in to consideration of the fact that P. W. 1 being a VAO could not have made such a statement, the conviction was recorded. The said findings recorded by the learned Judge cannot be sustained for the reason that the very extra judicial confession is a very weak type of evidence and no doubt the same can be relied upon, if there is some corroboration from the other circumstances. The said findings recorded by the learned Judge cannot be sustained for the reason that the very extra judicial confession is a very weak type of evidence and no doubt the same can be relied upon, if there is some corroboration from the other circumstances. In the present case, absolutely there is no corroboration to the alleged confessional statement said to have been made by the accused to P. W. 1. Apart from this aspect of the matter, the confessional statement itself cannot be believed for the reason that the medical evidence is totally contrary to the said statement alleged to have been made by the accused to P. W. 1. In view of the same, especially in the absence of any other material available on record, on the ground of grave suspicion as expressed by the father, mother and sister of the deceased conviction cannot be recorded and hence, the said findings cannot be sustained and accordingly the said findings are hereby set aside. ( 16 ) THE conviction and sentence accordingly are hereby set aside and the criminal Appeal is allowed. The bail bonds of the appellant-accused shall stand cancelled.