Judgment :- M.Karpagavinayagam, J. Chinnasamy alias Chinnapaiyan, the appellant herein was charged for the offence under Section 302 IPC for having committed the murder of one Mahaboobi on 8.5.1991 at about 8 p.m. On the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the trial Court convicted the appellant/accused and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment. Hence, this appeal. 2. Short facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal could be summarised as follows: (a) Chinnasamy alias Chinnapaiyan, the appellant herein is the younger brother of one Nagammal. P.W.1 Pachiyappan married the said Nagammal 12 years ago. Out of their wedlock, three children, two female and one male, were born. (b) In course of time, P.W.1 Pachiyappan had developed illicit intimacy with one Mahaboobi. Mahaboobi already got married. In view of the illicit intimacy, her husband divorced her. Thereafter, their illicit intimacy continued. This was objected to by Nagammal. Due to this, there were frequent quarrels between P.W.1 and his wife Nagammal. Some months later, Nagammal died in a suspicious circumstance. Due to that, a case was registered against P.W.1 on the complaint given by the accused, the brother of Nagammal. The trial went on in respect of the said charge. Ultimately, P.W.1 was acquitted. (c) Then, P.W.1 Pachiyappan married Mahaboobi and out of fear at the hands of the accused, both P.W.1 and the deceased Mahaboobi left the village and settled at Krishnagiri. Out of the said three children born to P.W.1 through Nagammal, two female children were sent to asylum and one male child was brought up by both P.W.1 and the deceased Mahaboobi. (d) The accused received a news that the children were not looked after. The accused had also a feeling that only at the instance of Mahaboobi, who had illicit intimacy with P.W.1, P.W.1 committed the murder of his sister Nagammal. (e) One week prior to the date of occurrence, P.W.1 Pachiyappan with his second wife Mahaboobi, in order to attend the puberty function of his first daughter Selvi, left for Krishnagiri from their native place. When the accused heard the news that Mahaboobi also came along with P.W.1 Pachiyappan and they were staying at the house of their relatives, the accused came there at about 8 p.m. (f) At that time, P.Ws.1 to 5 were staying there. The deceased also was sitting in the pial opposite to the house of P.W.1's brother. When the accused heard the news that Mahaboobi also came along with P.W.1 Pachiyappan and they were staying at the house of their relatives, the accused came there at about 8 p.m. (f) At that time, P.Ws.1 to 5 were staying there. The deceased also was sitting in the pial opposite to the house of P.W.1's brother. The accused removed the billhook (M.O.8) from his waist and caught hold of the tuft of the deceased with his left hand and gave indiscriminate cuts on the neck and other parts of the body. Thereafter, he threatened the witnesses and ran away. The deceased died on the spot. (g) P.W.1 Pachiyappan, having seen the ghastly occurrence, rushed to the Poochamballi Police Station and gave a complaint at 10 p.m. P.W.14 Sub-Inspector of Police registered the same in Crime No.230 of 1991 for the offence under Section 302 IPC. Ex.P-36 is the F.I.R. Message was sent to the Court as well as to the Police officials. (h) P.W.17 Inspector of Police received the F.I.R. and then took up investigation. He went to the scene of occurrence at about 11.45 p.m. and on the next day, i.e. on 9.5.1991, he prepared observation mahazar and rough sketch and also conducted inquest over the body of the deceased between 7.00 a.m. and 11 a.m. and examined the witnesses, namely P.Ws.1 to 6. P.W.17 Inspector of Police recovered bloodstained earth, sample earth, bloodstained straw-mat, bangles, chappal etc. from the scene of occurrence. (i) In the meantime, the accused went to his father-in-law's house at Dadampatti Kollaikottair and buried the weapon (M.O.8 billhook) and then went to P.W.7 Village Administrative Office on 9.5.1991 at 6.30 a.m. and gave extra-judicial confession to him. P.W.7 V.A.O. recorded the same in the presence of P.W.9 Krishnamurthy who happened to be there. Ex.P-23 is the extra-judicial confession. (j) Thereafter, P.W.7 V.A.O. took the accused to the Police Station, accompanied by P.W.9 and produced the accused before P.W.15 Sub-Inspector of Police. P.W.15 arrested the accused, obtained his confession and recovered M.O.6 bloodstained earth and M.O.7 lungi from him. (k) In pursuance of the confession, P.W.15 Sub-Inspector of Police went to the father-in-law's house of the accused and recovered M.O.8 billhook as was pointed out by the accused. In the meantime, P.W.17 arranged for sending the body for post-mortem. P.W.15 arrested the accused, obtained his confession and recovered M.O.6 bloodstained earth and M.O.7 lungi from him. (k) In pursuance of the confession, P.W.15 Sub-Inspector of Police went to the father-in-law's house of the accused and recovered M.O.8 billhook as was pointed out by the accused. In the meantime, P.W.17 arranged for sending the body for post-mortem. (l) On 9.5.1991 at 2 p.m., P.W.12 Doctor conducted post-mortem on the body of the deceased and found as many as 10 injuries and gave an opinion in Ex.P-34 post-mortem certificate that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries sustained on big vessels, nerves and spinal cord. (m) Then, P.W.17 Inspector of Police, came to the Police Station, examined the accused and produced him for judicial remand. P.W.17 Inspector of Police continued the investigation by examining other witnesses. The material objects were sent for chemical analysis. (n) P.W.17 Inspector of Police also sent a requisition to the Chief Judicial Magistrate for recording the statement of P.Ws.1 to 5, who are stated to be the eye-witnesses. Accordingly, P.W.11 Judicial Magistrate recorded their statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The said statements are Exs.P-20, 29 to 32. (o) After completion of the investigation, P.W.17 Inspector of Police filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC. 3. During the course of trial, on the side of prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 17 were examined, Exs.P-1 to P-42 were filed and M.Os.1 to 15 were marked. 4. When the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating materials, he denied his complicity in the crime. 5. The trial Court, on considering the evidence available on record, found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC and convicted and sentenced him thereunder. Challenging the same, this appeal has been filed. 6. Mr.A.Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, while assailing the judgment of conviction, would make the following contentions: The prosecution relied upon three sets of evidence, namely, (i) Section 164 Cr.P.C. statements of P.Ws.1 to 5, (ii) Ex.P-23 extra-judicial confession and (iii) recovery of bloodstained clothes and weapons, namely M.Os.6,7 and 8 from the accused. Even though Section 164 Cr.P.C. statements have been given by P.Ws.1 to 5, they did not support the prosecution case and therefore, they were treated hostile. Even though Section 164 Cr.P.C. statements have been given by P.Ws.1 to 5, they did not support the prosecution case and therefore, they were treated hostile. Consequently, Section 164 Cr.P.C. statements cannot be considered to be the substantive evidence. Ex.P-23 extra-judicial confession cannot be relied upon for the reason that it has been recorded subsequent to the commencement of investigation and therefore, it cannot be taken to be a true and voluntary statement. Further, a reading of Ex.P-23 would make it clear that it contains graphic details and as such, this document must be a concocted one at the instance of the prosecution. There is no reason adduced by the prosecution to show as to why the accused has chosen to go to P.W.7 V.A.O to give extra-judicial confession Ex.P-23. In view of the fact that Ex.P-23 extra-judicial confession cannot be considered to be a valid document, the recovery of M.Os.6,7 and 8 would not give a formidable material to base conviction on the accused. Further, Ex.P-23 itself would contain particulars of the place where M.O.8 was buried. In view of the above circumstances, the conviction imposed on the accused has to be held illegal. 7. In reply to the above submissions, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, in justification of the grounds for conviction, would contend that the available materials are sufficient to base the conviction. 8. Learned counsel on both sides would cite a cart-load of authorities. 9. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions urged by learned counsel on either side and also gone through the records. 10. Though there were five eye-witnesses to the occurrence, all have turned hostile. So, the entire case would hinge upon the circumstantial evidence. It is well settled that in the case of circumstantial evidence, each circumstance must be established by prosecution; those circumstances should unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused and it must form a complete chain without any missing link. In the light of the above legal situation, we have to consider the circumstances available in this case. 11. As correctly pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant, three sets of evidence are available, on the basis of which the conviction has been based by the trial Court. They are: (i) Section 164 Cr.P.C. statements of P.Ws.1 to 5, namely Exs.P-20 and 29 to 32. 11. As correctly pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant, three sets of evidence are available, on the basis of which the conviction has been based by the trial Court. They are: (i) Section 164 Cr.P.C. statements of P.Ws.1 to 5, namely Exs.P-20 and 29 to 32. (ii) Ex.P-23 extra-judicial confession made by the accused to P.W.7 V.A.O. in the presence of P.W.9 Krishnamurthy. (iii) Recovery of M.Os.6 and 7, the bloodstained clothes and M.O.8 blood stained billhook from the accused. 12. Even at the outset, it shall be stated that we are in full agreement with the contention of learned counsel for the appellant with regard to the point that the trial Court has committed a grave illegality in acting upon the retracted Section 164 Cr.P.C. statements of the witnesses, namely P.Ws.1 to 5, which are Exs.P-20 and 29 to 32, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the following decisions: (i) 1972 SCC (Cri) 493 - Ram Kishan Singh vs. Harmit Kaur. (ii) AI R 1960 SC 490 - State of Delhi vs. Shri Ram Lohia. (iii) AIR (33) 1946 PRIVY COUNCIL 38 - Brij Bhushan vs. Emperor. 13. P.W.1 Pachiyappan, one of the eye-witnesses, went to Police Station and gave a complaint to P.W.14 Sub-Inspector of Police at about 10 p.m. on 8.5.1991. He mentioned about the presence of other witnesses, namely P.Ws.2 to 5. They have also given statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. mentioning the details of the occurrence, which are in consonance with the contents of Ex.P-36 F.I.R. But unfortunately, all these witnesses have not supported the prosecution and they have retracted their statements given to P.W.11 Judicial Magistrate. Even then, the trial Court relied upon Section 164 Cr.P.C. statements as one of the pieces of evidence, in addition to the other materials available on record and convicted the accused. This is wrong, in view of the judgments cited supra and consequently, it has to be held that the statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. cannot be acted upon. 14. The other evidence is Ex.P-23 extra-judicial confession and the recovery of M.Os.6,7 and 8, the bloodstained clothes and billhook. The main stress made by learned counsel for the appellant is that Ex.P-23, extra-judicial confession, is to be discarded, as it would suffer from various infirmities. 14. The other evidence is Ex.P-23 extra-judicial confession and the recovery of M.Os.6,7 and 8, the bloodstained clothes and billhook. The main stress made by learned counsel for the appellant is that Ex.P-23, extra-judicial confession, is to be discarded, as it would suffer from various infirmities. According to him, Ex.P-23 extra-judicial confession, which was given by the accused to P.W.7 V.A.O. on 9.5.1991, was admittedly after the commencement of investigation. P.W.1 has given a complaint to P.W.14 Sub-Inspector of Police at about 10 p.m. on 8.5.1991 and the same was registered. Ex.P-23 extra-judicial confession was given by the accused to P.W.7 V.A.O at about 6.30 a.m. on the next day, i.e. 9.5.1991 and in view of the prohibition contained in Rule 72 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, Ex.P-23 extra-judicial confession loses its value. He would further contend that the reading of Ex.P-23 would show that it is not voluntary and there are artificial and suspicious features and therefore, the same has to be rejected. He would cite the following authorities in support of the same: (a) 1987 L.W. (Crl.) 375 (Valanjiya Chinnammal vs. State). (b) 1995 (2) L.W. (Crl.) 513 (Raju & 2 others vs. State, etc.). (c) 1997 (I) C.T.C. 339 (Muthu @ Nambian vs. State). (d) 2002 (2) C.T.C. 766 (Ganesan vs. State). (e) 2002 S.C.C. (Cri) 1382 (Thangavelu vs. State of T.N). 15. The principles laid down in the above decisions are as follows: (i) Having regard to the practice which is embodied in Rule 72 of the Criminal Rules of Practice and the likelihood of misuse of such extra-judicial confession in actual practice, if admitted, it is not safe to rely on such extra-judicial confession. (ii) Though Rule 72 of the Criminal Rules of Practice prohibits Village Magistrate/Village Munsif from recording confession, it is not possible to state that the confession statement recorded by them after investigation has begun, is illegal or inadmissible in evidence, but the weight attached to the same may be a relevant question for consideration on the facts and circumstances of each case. (iii) The provisions of Rule 72 of the Criminal Rules of Practice have been introduced to prevent false extra-judicial confession being secured through the help of Village Munsif by the Police after the commencement of investigation. (iii) The provisions of Rule 72 of the Criminal Rules of Practice have been introduced to prevent false extra-judicial confession being secured through the help of Village Munsif by the Police after the commencement of investigation. The value of the extra-judicial confession becomes less when it is obtained by a person in the position of the Village Munsif after investigation of the case by the Police has started. Therefore, it cannot be said that it is illegal or inadmissible in evidence, but what would be the probative value of such confession, depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. 16. In view of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court as well as this Court, as stated above, we are to hold that Ex.P-23 extra-judicial confession, in spite of Rule 72 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, cannot be rejected on the mere ground that the investigation has already commenced and therefore, it is inadmissible. If, on a perusal of the extra-judicial confession, it inspires confidence and it is held to be true and voluntary, the same can be acted upon. 17. The second limb of argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is that Ex.P-23 extra-judicial confession would contain graphic details and there is no valid reason as to what made the accused to go to P.W.7 V.A.O. to give confession, in the absence of any relationship between them, instead of surrendering before the Police concerned and therefore, Ex.P-23 extra-judicial confession cannot be accepted. Learned counsel for the appellant would cite the following decisions in support of his contention: (i) AIR 1982 SC 1595 (Heramba Brahma vs. State of Assam). (ii) 1974 SCC (Cri) 657 (Jagta vs. State of Haryana). (iii) 1994 SCC (Cri) 505 (Sakharam Shankar Bansode vs. State of Maharashtra). (iv) 2000 SCC (Cri) 236 (Balbir Singh vs. State of Punjab). (v) 1999 SCC (Cri) 33 (Surinder Kumar vs. State of Punjab). (vi) 1997 (1) SCC 510 (Jaspal Singh vs. State of Punjab). (vii) 2002 SCC (Cri) 1382 (Thangavelu vs. State of T.N.). 18. The Supreme Court in AIR 1982 SC 1595 (cited supra), while relying on another decision of the Supreme Court in 1972 (3) SCC 759 = AIR 1973 SC 343 (Rahim Beg vs. State of U.P.), would observe as follows: "18. ... .. .... (vii) 2002 SCC (Cri) 1382 (Thangavelu vs. State of T.N.). 18. The Supreme Court in AIR 1982 SC 1595 (cited supra), while relying on another decision of the Supreme Court in 1972 (3) SCC 759 = AIR 1973 SC 343 (Rahim Beg vs. State of U.P.), would observe as follows: "18. ... .. .... There was no history of previous association between the witness and the two accused as may justify the inference that the accused could repose confidence in him. In the circumstances, it seems highly improbable that the two accused would go to Mohmed Nasim Khan and blurt out a confession. ... " 19. In 1974 SCC (Cri.) 657 (cited supra), the Supreme Court has held as follows: "14. .... ..... We find no reason as to why the accused, instead of surrendering himself before the police, should go to the house of Ram Singh in village Farmana, blurt out a confession before him and ask him to produce the accused before the police. Nothing has been shown to us as to why the accused could not himself go and appear before the Police .... " 20. In 1994 SCC (Cri.) 505 (cited supra), the Supreme Court would observe thus: "4. It is well settled now that a retracted extra-judicial confession, though a piece of evidence on which reliance can be placed, but the same has to be corroborated by independent evidence. That apart, the court must be satisfied that the confession alleged to have been made to P.W.11 was true and voluntary one and in judging the same, the conduct of P.W.11 and the circumstances which impelled the accused to make such a statement to P.W.11 should be above suspicion. ... " 21. In 2000 SCC (Cri) 236 (cited supra), the Supreme Court has observed as follows: "3. ... An extra-judicial confession even if believed is considered a very weak piece of evidence and ordinarily is not accepted without independent corroboration. " 22. In 1999 SCC (Cri) 33 (cited supra), the Supreme Court has held thus: "5. .. It is significant to note that they had no particular relationship or connection with PW6, so as to confide in him and take his assistance for surrendering before the police. " 22. In 1999 SCC (Cri) 33 (cited supra), the Supreme Court has held thus: "5. .. It is significant to note that they had no particular relationship or connection with PW6, so as to confide in him and take his assistance for surrendering before the police. If really they wanted to surrender --- as is the evidence of PW6 --- we fail to understand why instead of going to the police they would approach him and blurt out a confession before him. ..." 23. In 2002 SCC (Cri) 1382 (cited supra), the Supreme Court would hold as under: "7. .... A perusal of this confession Ext.P-14 gives us an indication of the attempt of the prosecution to build a case against this appellant. This extra-judicial confession is so full of facts starting from abut 25 years prior to the date of the incident and graphically details what happened over these years to his sister and his family which actually is the motive suggested by the prosecution for the crime. Ext.P-14 is recorded in nearly 4 full pages, it not only speaks of his motive to kill D-1 and D-2 but also gives graphic details of the nature of the attack on the deceased and also mentions in detail the persons whom he saw during and after the incident. In a manner of speaking, if this confession is true the appellant had the foresight to guess as to who the prosecution witnesses are going to be and gives an impression, therefore, he was seeking to corroborate their future evidence. ... " 24. On the basis of the observations made by the Supreme Court as well as this Court, it is strenuously contended that the extra-judicial confession made by the accused to P.W.7 V.A.O. has to be rejected from consideration. 25. We have gone through the entire judgments cited above. At the threshold, we must admit that there are some minute details in Ex.P-23 extra-judicial confession. But, we should not lose sight of the fact that the accused, after the occurrence, immediately rushed to his father-in-law's house and from there, he went to V.A.O's house next day morning at about 6.30 a.m. and gave Ex.P-23 extra-judicial confession statement. 26. At the threshold, we must admit that there are some minute details in Ex.P-23 extra-judicial confession. But, we should not lose sight of the fact that the accused, after the occurrence, immediately rushed to his father-in-law's house and from there, he went to V.A.O's house next day morning at about 6.30 a.m. and gave Ex.P-23 extra-judicial confession statement. 26. It was strenuously argued by learned counsel for the appellant that in the absence of any material with regard to the association between the accused and P.W.7 V.A.O., there is no necessity for the accused to go to P.W.7 V.A.O., that too in the early morning of 9.5.1991, instead of surrendering before Police. 27. Though this argument, at the first blush, looks attractive, a thorough probe would make it clear that this contention has no legs to stand. The reason is obvious. In Ex.P-23 extra-judicial confession, the accused had stated that he went to his father-in-law's house after murdering the deceased and concealed the weapon (M.O.8 billhook) in a sugarcane haystack and then informed the occurrence to one Govindasamy, who is his brother-in-law. Only on the advice of his brother-in-law, the accused went to P.W.7 V.A.O. to give extra-judicial confession. Relevant portion of Ex.P-23 is as follows: According to the accused, in Ex.P-23 extra-judicial confession, he informed the occurrence to Govindasamy and on his instruction, he went to P.W.7 V.A.O. and gave a statement. Therefore, it cannot be contended that there is no reason as to why the accused should go to P.W.7 V.A.O. 28. A reading of the evidence of P.Ws.7 and 9 would make it clear that both were there at about 6.30 a.m. on 9.5.1991 and at that time, the accused came, wearing bloodstained clothes and then on his statement, P.W.7 V.A.O. recorded the same and obtained his signature. The attesting signature also was put by Krishnamurthy who has been examined as P.W.9. 29. According to prosecution, P.Ws.7 and 9 went to the Police Station and handed over Ex.P-23 extra-judicial confession, along with the report and also produced the accused. P.W.15 Sub-Inspector of Police, on receipt of Ex.P-23, registered the case for the offence under Section 302 IPC and arrested the accused and recovered M.Os.6 and 7, the bloodstained clothes. 30. It is true that there are graphic details in Ex.P-23 extra-judicial confession about the motive for the occurrence. P.W.15 Sub-Inspector of Police, on receipt of Ex.P-23, registered the case for the offence under Section 302 IPC and arrested the accused and recovered M.Os.6 and 7, the bloodstained clothes. 30. It is true that there are graphic details in Ex.P-23 extra-judicial confession about the motive for the occurrence. It can be stated that the graphic details given in Ex.P-23 extra-judicial confession would be a ground to entertain suspicion about the genuineness of the same. At the same time, it may be stated that though there are minute details in Ex.P-23, those details can be relied upon since those details are such that they are to the exclusive knowledge of the accused alone. 31. As a matter of fact, in one decision, extra-judicial confession has been believed by a Division Bench of this Court in 2003 M.L.J. (Crl.) 752 (Sakthivel vs. State), though it contained minute details, on the reason that the details in extra-judicial confession are known and are to exclusive knowledge of the accused alone. Relevant portion of the said decision of this Court is as follows: "10. On a perusal of Ex.P-3 extra-judicial confession, it is seen that minute details had been given by the accused which were only to the exclusive knowledge of the accused; it cannot be said that the same would have been written by the Village Administrative Officer himself. Therefore, it proves that the confession was true and voluntary. .. .... " 32. As pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant, recording of Ex.P-23 confession statement was done by P.W.15 Sub-Inspector of Police only after the commencement of investigation. Factually, it may be correct. But it has to be borne in mind that there are no materials to show that P.W.7 V.A.O. knew about the commencement of investigation with reference to the occurrence and the recording of Ex.P-23 from the accused was done only at the instance of the Police. 33. Much was said about the untimely presence of P.Ws.7 and 9 at the office. But, the evidence of P.Ws.7 and 9 would make it clear that the house of V.A.O. is very near-by and he used to attend office in the early morning itself. P.W.9 would state that he belongs to Puliyampatti Village and went to V.A.O. office to talk to P.W.7 V.A.O. with reference to the loan applied by him. But, the evidence of P.Ws.7 and 9 would make it clear that the house of V.A.O. is very near-by and he used to attend office in the early morning itself. P.W.9 would state that he belongs to Puliyampatti Village and went to V.A.O. office to talk to P.W.7 V.A.O. with reference to the loan applied by him. There is no enmity suggested either to P.W.7 or to P.W.9, as against the accused and nothing has been elicited by the defence during the course of cross-examination of P.Ws.7 and 9 that they are very much interested in the prosecution. Under those circumstances, we have no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.Ws.7 and 9. 34. The fact that recording of Ex.P-23 extra-judicial confession was after the commencement of investigation, would not in our view make the confession invalid or inadmissible. On the other hand, it is to be stated that there has been voluntary confession by the accused immediately next day morning to the occurrence. Further, as the Supreme Court would hold that though the confession statement is considered to be a weak piece of evidence, if there is independent corroboration available, the same can be acted upon. 35. In this context, the observation of the Supreme Court is relevant as laid down in 2001 SCC (Cri.) 323 (Gura Singh vs. State of Rajasthan), which reads as follows: "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 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. 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 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. .... .... Corroboration of such evidence is required only by way of abundant 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. .... .... 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. 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. ... ... 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." 36. In the light of the above observation of the Supreme Court, if we look at the extra-judicial confession, we are of the view that it is not only free from doubt, but also corroborated by independent material. 37. Let us now come to the recovery. According to prosecution, the accused was produced by P.Ws.7 and 9 to P.W.15 Sub-Inspector of Police, who in turn arrested him and recovered M.Os.6 and 7, the bloodstained clothes. Though it is said that in pursuance of the confession, M.O.8 billhook has been recovered, according to learned counsel for the appellant, the recovery of weapon cannot be acted upon, in view of the fact that the fact that the weapon M.O.8 has been concealed in the sugarcane haystack of the father-in-law's house of the accused, has been mentioned in Ex.P-23 extra-judicial confession itself. 38. Even assuming that the said recovery with reference to the weapon is to be eschewed, we have got the evidence for the recovery of the bloodstained clothes from the accused at the Police Station by P.W.15 Sub-Inspector of Police in the presence of P.Ws.7 and 9. Fortunately, for the prosecution, the report of the Serologist would show that the blood group of the deceased tallied with the group of the bloodstained in the clothes recovered from the accused. Fortunately, for the prosecution, the report of the Serologist would show that the blood group of the deceased tallied with the group of the bloodstained in the clothes recovered from the accused. So, in our view, this is formidable and independent acceptable corroboration. 39. We also notice that the motive part as mentioned in Ex.P-23 extra-judicial confession, has been spoken to by P.W.6. P.W.6, though turned hostile, would state that there was enmity between the accused and the deceased. Relevant portion of the evidence of P.W.6 is as follows: According to P.W.6, there used to be quarrel between P.W.1 and the accused and in view of the fact that the accused had thought that Mahaboobi was responsible for the murder of his sister Nagammal and due to that, out of fear at the hands of the accused, both Pachiyappan and Mahaboobi left the village and settled at Krishnagiri. 40. Further, the details of injuries and the manner of attack mentioned in Ex.P-23 extra-judicial confession, have been corroborated by medical evidence through P.W.12 Doctor. According to Ex.P-23, the accused caught hold of the tuft of the deceased and gave cuts with 'koduval' on the neck repeatedly and while it was warded off, he also caused injury on the hands. P.W.12 Doctor would mention the following external injuries in Ex.P-34 post-mortem certificate: "(1) Incised would over the left side of the face anterior aspect of the mandible to left ear cutting muscles, mandible and exposing oral cavity. (2) Multiple incised wounds over the left side of middle of the neck, 20 cm x 10 cm exposing great vessels, nerves and vertebral bone, spinal cord. (3) Incised wound over the left loin 5 cm x 2 cm depth not known. (4) Incised wound over the left infra scapular area 3 cm x 2 cm depth not known. (5) Incised wound over the right shoulder 3 in number each about 5 cm x 3 cm x 3cm. (6) Incised wound over the left occipital bone 3 cm x 3 cm x 1 cm. (7) Incised wound over the right side of the middle of the neck 5 cm x 5 cm x 5 cm. (8) Multiple incised wound over the right arm each about 3 cm x 3 cm x 3 cm. (9) Incised wound over the index finger hanging with skin. (7) Incised wound over the right side of the middle of the neck 5 cm x 5 cm x 5 cm. (8) Multiple incised wound over the right arm each about 3 cm x 3 cm x 3 cm. (9) Incised wound over the index finger hanging with skin. (10) Incised wound over the left wrist 10 cm x 5 cm bone cut (wrist). " 41. Thus, the main occurrence has been clearly proved by Ex.P-23 extra-judicial confession, which has been spoken to by P.Ws.7,9 and 15 and the same has been sufficiently corroborated by the medical testimony through P.W.12 Doctor and also P.W.6 Murugesan who speaks about the occurrence. 42. Therefore, we do not find any reason to hold that the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court on the appellant/accused are wrong. Accordingly, the same are confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. Since the accused is on bail, the trial Court is directed to take steps to secure his custody to undergo the remaining period of sentence.