JUDGMENT - BRAHME P.S., J.: - The appellant was tried for committing murder of his wife Kusum for offence under section 302 I.P.C. On the trial the prosecution examined in all 11 witnesses including Dr. Smt. Kanta Motghare (P.W. 7) who carried autopsy on the dead body of Kusum and prepared postmortem note (Exhibit 49), Lahu (P.W. 5), Shankar Kamble (P.W. 6) and Madhukar Zade to whom the appellant made extrajudicial confession and Nandkumar Ozha (P.W. 11) who conducted investigation in the matter. The learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur by his judgment and order dated 30-3-1998 convicted the appellant for offence under section 302 of I.P.C. and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo R.I. for 3 months. The appellant has challenged the judgment of conviction and sentence passed against him in this appeal. 2. The prosecution case in nutshell is that deceased Kusum was married to the appellant after having taken divorce from her previous husband. The appellant had two sons from his previous wife. On the date of incident which took place on the night of 27-3-1997 the appellant and his wife were sleeping in their house. The appellant was addict to drinking liquor and he was ill-treating physically and mentally to his wife-Kusum as he was suspecting her character and he was asking her to give divorce. The appellant and his wife-Kusum were residing in the house of one Gothe (P.W. 2) as tenant. On the night of 27-3-1997, the appellant assaulted Kusum with a spear-blade inflicting injuries on her trachea and committed her murder. He had kept the spear-blade below the cot and left the house. On the next day morning he was found in the well which is situated near his house. It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant after having left the house, hidden himself in the well by entering into the well by holding the rope. He had tied one end of the rope to Khiradi and other end of the rope was put in the well. In the morning one girl-namely Mangala (P.W. 3) went to the well to fetch water, she noticed the accused inside the well and therefore, she raised shouts. He had tied one end of the rope to Khiradi and other end of the rope was put in the well. In the morning one girl-namely Mangala (P.W. 3) went to the well to fetch water, she noticed the accused inside the well and therefore, she raised shouts. Thereafter, Parasram Raut (P.W. 1), Baban, Ramchandra, Vasanta, Mathuji, Shankar Kamble, Narayan Singh, Ramesh, Krushna and Madhukar and other persons assembled on the well and the appellant was taken out from the well. He was wearing banian and lungi. When he was taken out from the well he disclosed before these persons who had assembled that he has committed crime by committing murder of his wife. He was taken to Police Station by Shankar Kamble, Lahanu, Baban and others. Witness Parasram did not see the wife of appellant in the mob and therefore, he went alongwith younger son of Vasanta to the house and when he pushed the door and they found that Kusum was lying dead on the cot and spear-blade was below the cot. Parasram (P.W. 1) went to the well and told this fact to the persons who were present there. 3. A.P.I. Nandkumar Ozha visited the spot and recorded the report of Parasram Raut, on the basis of which the offence was registered under section 302 of I.P.C. vide Crime No. 67/1997. Dead body of Kusum was sent to Civil Surgeon. At the same time the police recorded spot panchanama (Exhibit 18) as also inquest panchanama and then referred the dead body to Civil Hospital for post-mortem. Police also seized the rope which was put by the accused before the panchas on 27-3-1997 (Exhibit 61). The appellant was arrested and he was referred for medical examination. Medical Officer after examining him issued the medical certificate (Exhibit 17). Police also seized the sample of nail clippings of the accused under panchanama (Exhibit 18). Police seized lungi and banian from the house under panchanama (Exhibit 40). The clothes of the deceased Kusum came to be seized under panchanama (Exhibit 19). During the course of investigation the Investigating Officer sought opinion of the doctor by referring the spear-blade, whether the injuries could be possible by the said weapon. Doctor in his opinion vide Exhibit 50 stated that the injuries could be possible by the spear-blade (Article 1). The articles seized were sent to Chemical Analyser. During the course of investigation the Investigating Officer sought opinion of the doctor by referring the spear-blade, whether the injuries could be possible by the said weapon. Doctor in his opinion vide Exhibit 50 stated that the injuries could be possible by the spear-blade (Article 1). The articles seized were sent to Chemical Analyser. After completing the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed in the Court of J.M.F.C. who latter on committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and came to be tried. His defence is that of denial and false implication. In his statement recorded under section 313 Cri.P.C. he stated that he was sleeping in his house. Three persons came to his house at night, he woke from sleep; his wife was sleeping and he ran away from the back-door and fell in the well. The trial Court accepting the evidence of witnesses on extrajudicial confession and glaring circumstantial evidence of accused, having found in the well in the morning and also admitting that he was in the house at night, when murderous assault on his wife was made, came to the conclusion that it was the appellant who committed murder of his wife-Kusum and accordingly he convicted for the offence under section 302 and sentenced him as stated before. 4. We have heard Mr. Daga, learned Counsel for the appellant as also Mr. Mirza, learned A.P.P. for respondent-State. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the parties we have gone through the evidence. The fact that the victim Kusum was done to death as a result assault on her at night in her house by means of spear-blade (article 1) and that too in the presence of the appellant is not disputed. From the evidence of Doctor Kanta Motghare and also the details given in the post-mortem report (Exhibit 49), the deceased had sustained in all 7 external injuries on the chest and almost all the injuries were stab wounds and the same were ante mortem and of the same size. There was corresponding internal damage wherein pleura was torn left side, tracheae injured. The Medical Officer opined that the death was caused due to multiple stab injuries to vital organs and blood lost. There was corresponding internal damage wherein pleura was torn left side, tracheae injured. The Medical Officer opined that the death was caused due to multiple stab injuries to vital organs and blood lost. Therefore, there is no manner of doubt that Kusum died homicidal death, as a result of assault on her at night in the house. 5. The trial Court has accepted the evidence of witnesses-Madhukar (P.W. 9), Lahanu (P.W. 5), Shankar Kamble (P.W. 6) who were present on the well in the morning when the appellant was taken out from the well. In their evidence they have claimed that the appellant disclosed to them that he has committee crime of causing death of his wife. This evidence as extrajudicial confession by the appellant-accused under section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act has been accepted by the trial Court. The witness-Parasram (P.W. 1), went towards the well when he heard that somebody had fallen in the he well, he did not see the victim Kusum amongst the persons who had collected on the well. He therefore, alongwith younger son Vasanta, went to his house and on entering the house he found Kusum lying dead in the pool of blood on the cot. In his evidence he has stated that thereafter he lodged the report. Though this witnesses has been declared hostile by the prosecution, whatever he has stated in his examination-in-chief has not been controverted by the defence. So from his evidence it is crystal clear that the victim Kusum was found lying dead in the house. 6. Prosecution examined witness-Mangala (P.W. 3) who claimed that in the morning when she had gone to the well of Arvind Dhombre to fetch water and when she put the bucket in the well, it was felt heavy and therefore when she piped in the well she shouted as she saw one person in the well. She has stated in her evidence that people collected there and she came to know that the person who was in the well was the appellant-Vasant Karare who was fished out from the well. Evidence of this witness Mangala has gone unchallenged. It is not disputed that the accused was found in the well and that he was taken out from the well by the persons who had collected there. 7. Evidence of this witness Mangala has gone unchallenged. It is not disputed that the accused was found in the well and that he was taken out from the well by the persons who had collected there. 7. During the course of investigation the Investigation Officer A.P.I. visited the place of occurrence and made spot panchanama and seized the articles which were found under seizure memo (Exhibit 38). To substantiate this fact of seizure of articles which includes the spear blade (article 1) there is evidence of witnesses-Santoshrao Goteh (P.W. 2). He also stated that lungi (article 7) and banian (article 8) belonging to the accused were also seized under panchanama (Exhibit 40). The evidence of witness Santoshrao is corroborated by the evidence of Investigating Officer A.P.I. Nandkumar Ozha (P.W. 11) and the factum of seizure vide panchanama Exhibits 38 and 40 lends assurance to the same. 8. There is also evidence of seizure of the rope in question, one end of which was tied with Khiradi on the well. Witnesses have stated about it in their evidence. As per the report of Chemical Analyser (Exhibit 33), the blood detected on Nylon Rope (article 6) was human. As per the report of Chemical Analyser (Exhibit 33) the human blood is detected on the banian (Article 8). It was the same rope by which the appellant entered the well at night. In this context finding of human blood on the rope as also banian of the accused appellant is an incriminating circumstance lending assurance to the prosecution case that the appellant entered the well by holding the rope. This also falsifies the claim of the appellant that he fell into the well. It is also borne on the evidence on record that the rope (article 6) was seen by the persons collected on the well in the morning with one end tied to Khiradi and other and in the well. 9. The learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that the trial Court has committed an error of law in accepting the evidence of witnesses on extrajudicial confession alleged to have been made by the appellant as extrajudicial confession made by the accused, is not admissible. That apart the version of witnesses Madhukar, Shankar and Lahanu on extrajudicial confession is neither consistent nor giving the exact words uttered by the accused. That apart the version of witnesses Madhukar, Shankar and Lahanu on extrajudicial confession is neither consistent nor giving the exact words uttered by the accused. That the extrajudicial confession as deposed by these witnesses is neither true nor voluntary and therefore, it can not be relied upon by the Court to convict the appellant for the commission of crime alleged. He also submitted that the circumstances on which the prosecution has placed reliance are not sufficient to spell out the commission of crime by the appellant. The fact that the appellant was found in the well is consistent with his defence that three persons having entered in his house at night, he left the house, from the backside door and while running away fell into the well. The learned Counsel submitted that the prosecution has utterly failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt, that the appellant committed murder of his wife. 10. The learned A.P.P. Mr. Mirza, supported the judgment of conviction. He submitted that the trial Court has rightly accepted and relied upon the extrajudicial confession made by the accused to witnesses and said extrajudicial confession can be the basis of conviction. He placed reliance on decision of Apex Court in (Gurasingh v. State of Rajasthan)1, 2001(2) S.C.C. 205 to support his submission that extrajudicial confession if true and voluntary can be relied upon by the Court to convict the accused for commission of the crime alleged. He also submitted that the circumstances incriminating in nature as given by the trial Court as enumerated in para 20 of the judgment, have been duly established on the evidence on record and these circumstances coupled with extrajudicial confession positively and unerringly point out the guilt of the appellant and the circumstances stand militating against innocence. He therefore, urged that the appeal, merits no consideration and as such the same should be dismissed. 11. We have given our considerable thoughts to the submission of the Counsel for the appellant. Having regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court in catena of decisions, we do not agree with the he submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant that extrajudicial confession cannot form the sole basis of conviction. The Apex Court has held in 2001(2) S.C.C. 205 (supra) that extra judicial confession if voluntary, being not obtained by coercion, inducement or promise to favour can form sole basis of conviction. The Apex Court has held in 2001(2) S.C.C. 205 (supra) that extra judicial confession if voluntary, being not obtained by coercion, inducement or promise to favour can form sole basis of conviction. Corroboration is required only by way of abundant caution. Retraction of such confession would not, by itself weaken the prosecution. Therefore, the trial Court has committed no error, much less error of law in convicting the appellant on the basis of extra judiciary confession made by the appellant to the witnesses. 12. As regards the appreciating of evidence of extrajudicial confession, the Apex Court has observed that despite inherent weakness of extrajudicial 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 who it is made in the circumstances which tends to support the statement. That the evidence in the form of extrajudicial confession made by the accused to witnesses can not be always termed to be a tainted evidence. Corroboration of such evidence is required only by way of obtaining caution, if the Court believes 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. It is not open to the Court trying the criminal case to start with a presumption that extrajudicial confession is always a weak type of evidence. It would depend upon the nature of circumstances the time when the confession is made and the credibility of the witnesses who speak for such confession. 13. The Apex Court further held that the retraction of extrajudicial confession which is a usual phenomenon in criminal cases would by itself not weaken the case of the prosecution based upon such a confession. An unambiguous extrajudicial confession possess 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. Section 24 of the Evidence Act or was brought about in suspicious circumstances to circumvent sections 25 and 26. However, before relying on the alleged confession, the Court has to be satisfied that it is voluntary and is not the result of inducement. 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. In the case before hand, when the appellant was examined by the trial Court under section 313 Cri.P.C. specific questions were put to him regarding extrajudicial confession alleged to have been made by him to witnesses, Lahanu (P.W. 5), Shankar (P.W. 6) and Madhukar (P.W. 9) and the appellant has categorically denied the same saying in his answer that it is false. All the three witnesses were cross-examined by defence on the point of extrajudicial confession stated by these witness in their evidence before the Court. The presence of these witness on the well when the appellant was taken out from the well is not disputed. Witnesses have claimed that after he was taken out from the well he made disclosure statement confessing the crime committed by him of committing murder of his wife. It is no doubt true that the defence has controverted, that claim made by witnesses in their examination-in-chief, but in that regard except denial nothing is elicited through the evidence of these witnesses to indicate that confession was the result of inducement, threat or promise as envisaged under section 24 of the Evidence Act or was brought about any suspicious circumstances to circumvent sections 25 and 26. On the other hand the evidence as it stands makes it crystal clear that and also it is borne out on the evidence and circumstances on record that the confession has been made by the appellant to these witnesses voluntarily out of remorse and repentance when the appellant came to know that people came to know that wife of the appellant was done to death at night in the house. It has also come in the evidence of witness Lahanu that police arrived to the well within 1½ hours after his reaching to the well and he stated to the police that the accused had told while going by the road that he had committed murder of his wife. This shows that when the confession was made by the appellant that time police was not present. The witnesses are independent in the sense nobody was interested in implicating the appellant in commission of the crime. It is not suggested to the witnesses that they procured the confessional statement from the appellant under any promise or by causing inducement to him. It was suggested two witnesses by the defence that they have given evidence falsely against the accused on the say of police. This suggestion no doubt has been stoutly denied by the witnesses, is inherently meaningless. Nothing has been shown by the defence through the evidence of these witnesses that they had any reason to give false evidence against the appellant. So in the facts and circumstances of the case, we can safely reach to the conclusion that whatever confession was made by the appellant was truthful and voluntarily. 14. We have carefully gone through the confessional statement made by the accused to the witnesses. It is true that confessional statement deposed to by the witnesses is not comprised of same words. So far as the witness Lahanu is concerned, in his evidence he had stated that Vasant told us that he had committed a big crime and he was saying that he is repenting. He also told that he had committed murder of his wife. Witness Shankar (P.W. 6) in his evidence stated that Vasant told me and other persons that he had committed crime by murdering his wife. Witness-Madhukar (P.W. 9) in his evidence that accused was taken out from the well and thereafter the accused told us that he has committed a serious crime. It has come in the evidence that accused came to know that people collected there came to know that his wife was murdered. In the background of this, we do not find any inconsistency or ambiguity in the confessional statement made by the accused to these witnesses though the wording used by the witnesses as regards the confessional statement is different. In the background of this, we do not find any inconsistency or ambiguity in the confessional statement made by the accused to these witnesses though the wording used by the witnesses as regards the confessional statement is different. The confessional statement made by the appellant to these witnesses unerringly and without ambiguity and clearly shows that the appellant has committed murder of his wife. In other words his confession to witness Madhukar that he committed serious crime clinchingly goes to show that the crime was that of committing murder of his wife. Therefore, there is no reason to discard the evidence of witnesses on extrajudicial confession. The trial Court has rightly accepted the evidence of these witnesses on extrajudicial confession. We have also found that the extrajudicial confession, made by the appellant to these witnesses is voluntarily and truthful having regard to the circumstances attending the case. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant was rightly based on extrajudicial confession as deposed to by witnesses. 15. Besides the evidence of extrajudicial confession, there are circumstances which are either admitted or established on the evidence on record which lend assurance to the evidence of extrajudicial confession. It is not disputed that the appellant was very much in his house at night when his wife came to be assaulted. We have already referred to his reply to the question put to him wherein he has stated that at night three persons came to the house and apprehending that he left house. It is not disputed that wife of the accused came to be assaulted inflicting several blows with spear-blade that was seized from the house. As per the report of Chemical Analyser-Exhibit 33 blood detected on the spear blade (article 1) was human blood. It is not disputed that the said spear blade was found kept beneath the cot where the victim Kusum was found lying dead. The fact that human blood is detected on the spear-blade is necessarily a circumstances showing that the attack on the victim was with that spear-blade and the Medical Officer has opined that the injuries found on the dead body of Kusum could be caused by the spear-blade (article 1). In such circumstances then the conduct of the appellant in running away from the house as claimed by him, speaks volumes about his involvement in commission of the crime. In such circumstances then the conduct of the appellant in running away from the house as claimed by him, speaks volumes about his involvement in commission of the crime. In the nature of things had the appellant being innocent, as claimed by him and if he had no animus against his wife, he would have certainly resisted the assailants when they proceeded to attack his wife. In this context his story of running away from the house does not stand plausible and true. It is in this context the extrajudicial confession made by him to the witnesses immediately after he was taken out from the well is truthful and voluntary. 16. There are circumstances attending the case go to show that the defence putforth by the accused that he fell into the well while he proceeded running from the house, is palpably false. We have considered the evidence of witness-Mangala wherein she has stated that in the morning when she went to well to fetch water, she noticed one person in the well and when she raised shouts people collected and it was revealed that the person who was in the well was the appellant. It is matter of record that well has a parapet wall. If that is so then there was no occasion for the accused to fall in the well even if it is accepted that he went running. There is another circumstances to which we have already dealt and it is about the existence of nylon rope, one end of which was tied to Khiradi of the well and other end being left in the well. We have also found that human blood is detected on this rope (article 6). The human blood is detected on the baniyan of the accused. The accused had injuries on his persons. In such a situation, there was no propriety for any one to tie rope to Khiradi and leave the other end of the rope in the well. It is not that the other end of rope was tied to handle of the bucket. Existence and detection of human blood on the rope itself suggests that the appellant must entered in the well by holding the rope. In our opinion this factual position falsifies the defence that the appellant fell into well. It is not that the other end of rope was tied to handle of the bucket. Existence and detection of human blood on the rope itself suggests that the appellant must entered in the well by holding the rope. In our opinion this factual position falsifies the defence that the appellant fell into well. There is evidence on record to show that the appellant was ill-treating his wife Kusum as he was castigating her character and he was demanding divorce from her on that ground. All that could be said is that the relations of the accused with his wife Kusum were not cordial. That was the reason as appears to us why the accused did not remain in the house and left the house, hid himself in the well. Last, though not least it is very glaring that accused has not stated as to who were the assailants of his wife. He himself denied the allegations that the assault was made by him. But he was present in the house admittedly. Then in all probability it was incumbent on him to show as to who were the assailants. Nothing is brought by the defence in the evidence as to who as stranger were determined to cause murderous assault on the victim. Nothing was brought on record by the defence to show that any person was having animosity against victim. Therefore, having regard to extrajudicial confession and attending circumstances, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that it was the appellant who has done to death his wife by killing her at night in the house. 17. The trial Court has rightly found the appellant guilty for offence of committing murder of his wife. We do not find any error or irregularity in the judgment and order passed by the trial Court in convicting and sentencing the appellant for offence under section 302 I.P.C. In our considered opinion no interference is called for. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. -----