BILAL NAZKI, J. ( 1 ) SOLE accused in Sessions Case No. 74 of 1998 before the VII-Additional Sessions judge, Vijayawada is the appellant in this appeal. He has been convicted of the offence under Section 364 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- i/d. to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. He has also been convicted of the offence under section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of rs. 1,000/-i/d. to suffer simple imprisonment forthree months. He has also been convicted of the offence under Section 506 IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. ( 2 ) THE gravamen of the charge was that on 31 -7-1995 at about 5. 30 p. m. to 5. 45 p. m. at Vijayawada the accused committed the murder of one Kollipakula Suman after kidnapping him for ransom. Charges under sections 364,302 and 506 IPC were framed against the accused. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution examined 15 witnesses and exhibited 16 documents. P. Ws. 1 and 2 are the father and mother of the deceased respectively. P. Ws. 3 and 4 are the brothers of the deceased. P. W. 5 is the uncle of the deceased. ( 3 ) STORY of the prosecution was that the deceased and accused were residents of satyanarayanapuram, Vijayawada. The accused and his family members were living as tenants in P. W. 1 s house for 15 years prior to the occurrence. The accused knew the deceased and was familiar with the deceased. The deceased was studying 6th class in Balavidya Mandir, Laxminagar, vijayawada. On 31-7-1995 the deceased came back home from school and after having food he went out saying that he was going to see his friend, but did not return home. On 1-8-1995 at about 7. 45 a. m. P. Ws. 1 and 3 received an anonymous phone call. On phone they were told that the deceased was with the caller and he would release the deceased on receiving ransom, but he would specify the amount later. At about 11. 30 a. m. the same person phoned again and made a demand of rs. 6,00,000/ -. Phone calls were repeated on 2-8-1995,3-8-1995 and 5-8-1995. On phone they were told that the deceased was with the caller and he would release the deceased on receiving ransom, but he would specify the amount later. At about 11. 30 a. m. the same person phoned again and made a demand of rs. 6,00,000/ -. Phone calls were repeated on 2-8-1995,3-8-1995 and 5-8-1995. P. W. 3 suspected that the person who was speaking on the phone was the accused as he could identify his voice. A report was filed with the police on 1 -8-1995. P. W. 4-Sub-lnspector of police received the report-Ex. P-1 from p. W. 1 and registered a case in Cr. No. 166 of 1995 under Sections 363 and 3651 PC and issued F. I. Rs to all concerned. On 5-8-1995 at 18. 30 hours P. W. 3 went to P. W. 14 and presented a written report-Ex. P-2. P. W. 14 registered the report and altered the Sections of law to 364 and 302 IPC. ( 4 ) IN the light of these facts, the evidence which has been led by the parties may be marshalld now. P. W. 1 submitted that he owns a house at Satyanarayanapuram, vijayawada. He has been living with his wife and children in the said house. The deceased suman was his last son. He was aged 12 years on the date of occurrence. He was studying in 6th Class in Bala Vidya Mandir, laxmi Nagar, Vijayawada. He used to go to school and come back every day. On the date of occurrence his son Suman came back to home at 5. 00 p. m. , took food and went out stating that he was going to meet his friend, but he did not return. Since his son did not come back even by 9. 00 p. m. , he asked his other sons who came to the house at 9 p. m. ,toenquire about Suman. They searched in his relatives houses and friends houses, but his son could not be found. On 1-8-1995 at about 7. 45 a. m. he received an anonymous phone call, he handed overthe receiverto his son Subrahmanyam who talked to the caller. The gist of the message was that Suman was available with the caller and he required some money and he would inform later about the quantum of money. At about 11. On 1-8-1995 at about 7. 45 a. m. he received an anonymous phone call, he handed overthe receiverto his son Subrahmanyam who talked to the caller. The gist of the message was that Suman was available with the caller and he required some money and he would inform later about the quantum of money. At about 11. 30 a. m. another anonymous phone call was received from the same person. At this time the caller made a demand for Rs. 6,00,0007- as ransom. The caller told them that they should keep the money in a bag in the shop opposite to their house at 12. 00 mid night. Thereafter he and his son Subrahmanyam went to the police station and presented a report to the police. The report was signed by him which was ex. P-1. He narrated what had happened in ex. P-1. While leaving the house, his deceased son was wearing school uniform i. e. , blue nicker, white shirt, tie and hawai chappals. M. O. 1 is the pair of chappals, m. O. 2 is the blue colour neck tie, M. O. 3 is the white shirt with stains, M. O. 4 is the blood stained nicker, and M. O. 5 is the belt. His son was also wearing a waist thread which contained the inscription of Lord venkateswara and Goddess Laxmi Devi. He identified it as M. O. 6. M. Os. 1 to 6 were worn by his son at the time when he left the house. On the next day the same person made a call again and asked them as to why the money was not placed at the place indicated by him. His son Subrahmanyam replied that the caller had not come to the place at the given hour. Since the caller made phones every day from 1-8-1995, on 5-8-1995, his son subrahmanyam suspected that the voice of the person who was calling was the voice of the accused. His brother-in-law Panakalu (L. W. 6) was present in their house at that time. The accused and his family members were residing in the ground floor belonging to the witnesses. His brother-in-law went to the portion of the accused at about 12. 00 noon and verified about the presence of the accused. When the phone call was received, the accused was not present in his house. At about 5. 00 or 5. The accused and his family members were residing in the ground floor belonging to the witnesses. His brother-in-law went to the portion of the accused at about 12. 00 noon and verified about the presence of the accused. When the phone call was received, the accused was not present in his house. At about 5. 00 or 5. 30 p. m. the accused came to his house, then his brother-in-law brought him to the house of the witness. The witness stated that they had two telephones in his house. The accused was asked to talk from one telephone to another telephone, both telephones were in the same house, as the son of the witness wanted to test the voice of the accused and identify the voice because he had suspected that the phone calls he had received had been made by the accused. The accused accordingly talked from one telephone to another telephone and the son of the witness had heard his voice from another telephone. After hearing the voice of the accused over the telephone, his son subrahmanyam confirmed that the voice of anonymous caller was the voice of the accused. Then they questioned the accused. The accused had confessed that he had murdered his son for the purpose of money. Then they asked him about the dead body of the deceased, but the accused did not say anything. They handed over the accused to the police. During the midnight his brother-in- law and his son Subrahmanyam came back and told him that the accused had revealed the place where the dead body was kept. On the next day morning he saw the dead body of his son Suman on the rear side of godown near cement factory, Kedareswarpet, vijayawada near Guest house. He went to that place along with other persons. The body was putrefied. He identified the dead body of the deceased with the help of m. Os. 1 to 6. He was examined by the police. From 10 years before the occurrence the accused and his family members were living in the house of the witness as tenants. The father of the accused was running fair price shop and the accused was unemployed at that time. They were not financially sound. He and his sons including the deceased were living together, they owned substantial properties. From 10 years before the occurrence the accused and his family members were living in the house of the witness as tenants. The father of the accused was running fair price shop and the accused was unemployed at that time. They were not financially sound. He and his sons including the deceased were living together, they owned substantial properties. Prasad was his second son, he was not in the house on 31-7-1995, he had gone to Hyderabad on his business. There were no disputes in the family and theirs was a joint family. ( 5 ) P. W. 2 is the mother of the deceased. She stated that her son Suman had come back from school and after taking food, he had left for his friend s house. Thereafter he did not return back. She also testified that the accused and his family members were residing in the ground floor as tenants. ( 6 ) P. W. 3 is the brother of the deceased. He also stated what other two witnesses stated about the disappearance of the deceased. He stated that on 31-7-1995 at about 9. 00 p. m. he returned to his house after closing the shop. He was told by his parents about the disappearance of his brother (deceased ). During the night they searched the houses of their relatives and friends, but could not trace out the deceased. On the next day i. e. , 1-8-1995 at 7. 45 a. m. P. W. 1 lifted the phone and gave it to him. He received an anonymous phone call stating that Suman was available with him and he would specify the amount required by him later. The caller dropped the phone. Thereafter at 11. 30 a. m. the same person again telephoned and asked him to place an amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- at the shop opposite to their house. The caller asked him not to reveal the same to police and threatened to kill the deceased and even he would not see his dead body, if the police was informed. When he talked on the phone, his other members of the family were in the house. He went to the police station after realizing that his brother Suman had been kidnapped for ransom and gave a report-Ex. P-1. During that night they watched the place where he was asked to place the money. When he talked on the phone, his other members of the family were in the house. He went to the police station after realizing that his brother Suman had been kidnapped for ransom and gave a report-Ex. P-1. During that night they watched the place where he was asked to place the money. Police was also along with him at that place, but the culprit had not come. On 2-8-1995 at about 6. 45 p. m. the same person telephoned demanding him to pay Rs. 6,00,000/- and asked him to drop the money at the floor mill opposite to their house at mid night. This information was also given to the police. Police and he waited at the place indicated by the culprit during the night, but nobody came. Again on 3-8-1995 the same person telephoned and asked him to place rs. 6,00,000/- at the Kirana Shop of Mandava venkateswara Rao which was in the ground floor of their house. But he did not place any amount as demanded by the culprit. The caller also threatened him that he would take serious action since the matter had been reported to the police. No phone call was received on 4-8-1995. On 5-8-1995 at about 12. 45 p. m. the same person telephoned and demanded ransom of Rs. 6,00,000/- and asked him to put the money in a bag and keep the same at the shop of Kabba Rao which was in the ground floor of their house. Mandava Venkateswara Rao and Kabba Rao are father and son and they run the same shop. The caller also told him that he would not spare the life of Suman if the money was not paid. Since he had talked number of occasions with the person who was calling, he suspected that the voice of the caller was the voice of the accused. He knew the accused very well as the accused and his family members were residing in their house in the ground floor as tenants. While he was talking on phone, he entertained a suspicion that it was the accused who was talking to him on phone, therefore he asked his uncle panakala Rao to see whether the accused was available in his house. Panakala Rao came back and informed him that the accused was not in his house. While he was talking on phone, he entertained a suspicion that it was the accused who was talking to him on phone, therefore he asked his uncle panakala Rao to see whether the accused was available in his house. Panakala Rao came back and informed him that the accused was not in his house. So they decided to wait for the arrival of the accused who came at 5. 30 p. m. on 5-8-1995. He and his uncle took the accused to their house. They asked the accused to talk over telephone which was available in their house. He lifted the other phone which was available in their house and he confirmed that it was the accused who made anonymous phone calls from 1 -8-1995 onwards to their house. Then they questioned the accused as to what had happened to Suman. The accused did not give any answer initially, but on persistently questioning the accused, he confessed that he killed Suman by strangulation on last monday itself for money. Then he was questioned as to where was the dead body, but the accused did not give any reply. The witness and his uncle took the accused to the police station and handed over him to the police. After the arrival of Circle Inspector of police to the police station, he, his uncle and the mediators questioned the accused. The accused confessed before the mediators that he killed Suman for money by strangulation on the rear side of the guest house of the cement factory in the bushes. He said that he committed the murder of Suman for money. After 6. 30 p. m. , the accused led them to the place where the dead body of Suman was left by the accused. He presented a report- ex. P-2 in the police station. When they went to the place shown by the accused, he found the head of the deceased had been separated from the body and the body was in a putrefied condition. He identified the dead body of the deceased with the help of M. Os. 1 to 6. On seeing the dead body, his impression was that the deceased had been killed a week ago. He was examined by the police. Since the accused was living in their house, the accused was familiar with the deceased. He identified the dead body of the deceased with the help of M. Os. 1 to 6. On seeing the dead body, his impression was that the deceased had been killed a week ago. He was examined by the police. Since the accused was living in their house, the accused was familiar with the deceased. The accused used to come to his house and play with his brother Suman. The accused was unemployed. ( 7 ) P. W. 4 is another brother of the deceased. He also testified what had been testified by P. W. 3. He had also heard the voice of the accused from a parallel telephone which was available in the house. ( 8 ) P. W. 5 is the brother-in-law of P. W. 1. He was also available in the house when phone calls were received and also when the accused was brought to the house of P. W. 1. ( 9 ) P. W. 6 is another witness who was also a tenant of P. W. 1. He stated that on 31-7-1995 at 10. 00 p. m. P. W. 1 came to him and asked him whether he had seen his son in school uniform. On the next day he made enquiries from P. W. 3 about the missing of his brother and P. W. 3 told him that they were receiving anonymous phone calls demanding rs. 6,00,000/ -. ( 10 ) P. W. 7 was a student of degree in sarada College. He stated that he studied intermediate in Jyoti College. He knew the accused as he was his class mate in intermediate. The accused stopped his studies after Intermediate. They used to meet off and on. While he was coming from kedareswarapet to S. N. Puram, the accused was coming on a cycle and a boy was on the front rod of the cycle of the accused. At that time he saw them at the culvert (Vanthena) near Cement factory. He wished the accused and told him that he would meet him later. The accused proceeded with the boy on his cycle. He saw the accused along with the boy going inside the cement factory through the gate. The boy who was sitting on the rod of the cycle driven by the accused was aged 10 to 12 years. He wished the accused and told him that he would meet him later. The accused proceeded with the boy on his cycle. He saw the accused along with the boy going inside the cement factory through the gate. The boy who was sitting on the rod of the cycle driven by the accused was aged 10 to 12 years. When he saw the boy on the cycle of the accused, he was wearing M. O. 1 chappels and M. Os. 3 and 4. The boy was in school dress. He was examined by the police. In his cross-examination he stated that he was examined by the police on 5-8-1995. He and the accused used to move together and exchange visits to their respective houses rarely. He was going on foot in the opposite direction of the accused at about 5. 30 p. m. when he saw the accused with the boy. The distance between the culvert where he met the accused and the cement factory gate was 150 feet. ( 11 ) P. W. 18 is also a witness from whom enquiries had been made by P. W. 1 about the missing of his son Suman. P. W. 9 is a photographer who took photographs of dead body of the deceased. P. W. 10 is a mediator who questioned the accused in the police station. The accused confessed before him as in Ex. P-5. The accused stated that the chappals of the deceased boy were placed away from the dead body. At about 8. 45 p. m. they went to the scene of occurrence. They were led by the accused. The accused had shown the dead body of the deceased. Petromax lights were brought and the dead body of Suman was identified. The head of the deceased was separately placed. The accused searched for the chappals of the deceased and handed over the chappals to circle Inspector of Police. The dead body was in a decomposed condition. On the basis of M. Os. 1 to 6, P. Ws. 3 and 5 identified the dead body of the deceased. ( 12 ) P. W. 11 was a clerk in Magistrate s court who is a witness to material objects being sent to Forensic Science Laboratory by the Presiding Officer of the Court. On the basis of M. Os. 1 to 6, P. Ws. 3 and 5 identified the dead body of the deceased. ( 12 ) P. W. 11 was a clerk in Magistrate s court who is a witness to material objects being sent to Forensic Science Laboratory by the Presiding Officer of the Court. ( 13 ) P. W. 12 is a medical officer who identified the signatures of the doctor who conducted post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased, as that doctor had died. The doctor who conducted post mortem examination found the following injuries,"the skull is separated from the neck and at llnd cervical vertebral level. On dissection of the neck, neck muscles are decomposed. Hyoid bone is seen separated into pieces. Thyroid cartilage is broken on right side staining the surrounding tissues. Tracheal rings are intact. The injury is ante-mortem in nature. The cause of death of the deceased was due to constriction of neck by mugging, (compression of the neck by elbow ). " ( 14 ) P. W. 13 is a witness to seizure of m. Os. 4 to 6 at the scene of occurrence. He handed over the dead body of the deceased to his family members. P. W. 14 is the investigating officer who examined some of the witnesses. P. W. 15 is also an investigating officer. He stated that he interrogated the accused in presence of mediators and the accused led him along with mediators and relatives of the deceased to the scene of occurrence which was behind the cement factory guest house. The scene of occurrence was a vacant place consisting of bushes and small trees. They found a dead body which was in a highly decomposed state. The skull of the dead body was detached and lying at a distance of about 2 or 2 1/2 meters from the dead body. A white half hand shirt (M. O. 3) was found at a distance of 1. 9 meters from the skull. The accused picked up two blue hawai chappals (M. O. 1) from the nearby bushes. He inspected the scene of occurrence with the help of petromax light. He seized m. O. 1 P. Ws. 3 and 5 identified the deceased on verification of the dress M. O. 5, M. O. 1 and other belongings of the deceased. He recorded statements of some of witnesses. He inspected the scene of occurrence with the help of petromax light. He seized m. O. 1 P. Ws. 3 and 5 identified the deceased on verification of the dress M. O. 5, M. O. 1 and other belongings of the deceased. He recorded statements of some of witnesses. On 14-8-1995 he received post mortem certificate and examined Dr. K. Krishna prasad and recorded his statement. He sent the skull along with photographs of deceased to Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad with a letter of advice for super imposition test. On 13-11 -1995 he filed the charge sheet. ( 15 ) THE accused also produced two witnesses. D. W. 1 who worked as Deputy manager (Accounts) in Andhra Cement factory, Vijayawada from October, 1995 stated that near the culvert of S. N. Puram police station there was a gate to their factory. It was the only gate in front of the culvert near s. N. Puram police station. At that time the factory was closed and there was no security during 1995, but the security staff would be in attendance normally. He could not say whether the security staff wasavailable inside the factory at that time since he was not in charge of the security department. M. V. Ramanarao, the then Manager was in charge of the security department. During 1995 there were one or two people working in his branch i. e. , Accounts Branch. There was a road near the ice factory and one could enter the cement factory through that road. Private persons could also enter the premises through that road. ( 16 ) D. W. 2 who was also working in andhra Cement Factory, Vijayawada stated that from 1989 the factory was closed. At the factory gate there would be always security persons. After closure of the factory there were 20 persons working in security department. In Cross-examination by Addl. Public Prosecutor he stated that at the main gate there was no security and it was open for public. There were no walls on the rear side of the factory and the people of santhinagar and Ayodhyanagar would pass through the main gate. Factory gate was different from the main gate. In Cross-examination by Addl. Public Prosecutor he stated that at the main gate there was no security and it was open for public. There were no walls on the rear side of the factory and the people of santhinagar and Ayodhyanagar would pass through the main gate. Factory gate was different from the main gate. ( 17 ) IN the light of this evidence, the prosecution tried to establish the case on the basis of the following circumstances, (1) That the accused and the deceased were familiar with each other and the accused knew that the deceased s family was in a position to pay the amounts; (2) That the accused had been last seen with the deceased by P. W. 7; (3) That the accused had made an extra judicial confession before P. Ws. 1 to 3; (4) That the recovery of dead body was made at the instance and disclosure of the accused; (5) That the voice of the accused during telephone conversations was identified by P. W. 3; ( 18 ) COMING to the last circumstances first that P. W. 3 had identified the voice of the accused when phone calls were made for ransom, we do not think that in the absence of recording of those conversations and testing the voices by experts, it would be reasonable and safe to place much reliance on this circumstance. Therefore we do not think that we can hold that the person who made the phones to the family of the deceased was the accused person on the sole testimony of P. W. 3 who stated that he could identify the voice of the accused. If this circumstance is not taken into consideration, then we have to see on the basis of other circumstances whether the chain of circumstances is complete to point out towards only one conclusion and that conclusion being the guilt of the accused. Therefore we start with the evidence of P. W. 7 who had last seen the accused with the deceased. This witness was put to a long cross-examination, but he did not say anything which could be of any use to the defence. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submits that this witness was a friend of accused and he had no axe of his won to grind against the accused. This witness was put to a long cross-examination, but he did not say anything which could be of any use to the defence. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submits that this witness was a friend of accused and he had no axe of his won to grind against the accused. He saw the accused with a boy in school uniform just after the disappearance of the boy. The second circumstance is the extra judicial confession which the accused made before P. Ws. 1 to 3 when he was called to their houses and where he had confessed that he had killed the boy. P. Ws. 1 to 3 were truthful witnesses when they stated that the accused had only confessed to the murder, but did not disclose to them at their house as to where the dead body was kept by him. Third circumstance is the familiarity of the accused with the deceased. Both of them were living in the same house. The accused was the tenant of the father of the deceased, therefore it was not unusual if the accused asked the deceased to come along with him and lastly the circumstance of recovery of the dead body of the deceased at the instance and disclosure of the accused. The accused in his examination under Section 313 Cr. P. C. accepted that he and his family members were residing in the ground floor of the house of P. W. 1 for 10 to 15 years prior to the occurrence. He also accepted that P. W. 3 and his uncle had taken him to the police station and handed over him to the police. He also accepted that he was quite familiar with the deceased and he used to play with the deceased. He also accepted that he was classmate of P. W. 7 in Intermediate education. So, in our view, the chain of circumstances is complete to point out to only conclusion that the deceased was murdered by the accused. ( 19 ) THE learned counsel forthe appellant/ accused had relied on various judgments. In bahboo and others v. The State of Madhya pradesh. In para-13 the Supreme Court said,"13. The learned Additional Sessions judge has also referred to the recovery of Katarnas on the information given by accused Nos. 1, 3 and 5. ( 19 ) THE learned counsel forthe appellant/ accused had relied on various judgments. In bahboo and others v. The State of Madhya pradesh. In para-13 the Supreme Court said,"13. The learned Additional Sessions judge has also referred to the recovery of Katarnas on the information given by accused Nos. 1, 3 and 5. These recoveries hardly have any probative value in the facts and circumstances of this case. If there is no substantive evidence worth the name the recovery of Katarnas would hardly advance the prosecution case against the accused. Katarnas appear to have been stained the human blood. However, it is revealing to refer the recovery memos. Katarna is recovered from accused no. 1 under seizure memorandum ex. P-8 in which it is recited that accused no. 1 made the statement that he would show the Katarna with which he assaulted Diwan Singh on 21 -9-1973 at night. The first part in the seizure memo would be inadmissible because the fact that accused No. 1 assaulted Diwan singh is not discovered in pursuance of the information given by accused No. 1. It would be a confessional statement to police officer hit by Section 25 of the evidence Act. Same infirmities were to be found in regard to the recovery memos in respect of accused Nos. 3 and 5. In this background we are not disposed to attach any importance to the recovery of blood-stained Katarnas on the information given by accused nos. 1, 3 and 5. " ( 20 ) IN Bakshish Singh v. The State of punjab while dealing with the law relating to circumstantial evidence, the Supreme Court stated in para-9,"9. The law relating to circumstantial evidence has been stated by this Court in numerous decisions. It is needless to refer to them as the law on the point is well settled. In a case resting on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances put forward must be satisfactorily proved and those circumstances should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again those circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In a case resting on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances put forward must be satisfactorily proved and those circumstances should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again those circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. "and while dealing with the case before it, it stated in para-8,"8. Therefore the only incriminating evidence against the appellant is his pointing the place where the dead body of the deceased had been thrown. This, in our opinion is not a conclusive circumstance though undoubtedly it raises a strong suspicion against the appellant. Even if he was not a party to the murder, the appellant could have come to know the place where the dead body of the deceased had been thrown. Further, as mentioned earlier, at the bank of the river where the dead body was thrown into the river, there were broken teeth and parts of human body lying. Hence anyone who saw those parts could have inferred that the dead body must have been thrown into the river near about that place. " ( 21 ) THE Supreme Court stated that the incriminating evidence against the appellant was his pointing out the place where the dead body of the deceased had been thrown, which was not a conclusive circumstance though undoubtedly it raises a strong suspicion against the appellant. But in the present case, this is one of the circumstances. As we have pointed out hereinabove there are other connecting circumstances which leave no room to doubt the culpability of the accused. ( 22 ) ANOTHER judgment of the Supreme court reported in Balbir Singh v. State of punjab deals with an extrajudicial confession in which the Supreme Court held,"an extra judicial confession even if believed is considered a very weak piece of evidence and ordinarily is not accepted without independent corroboration. ( 22 ) ANOTHER judgment of the Supreme court reported in Balbir Singh v. State of punjab deals with an extrajudicial confession in which the Supreme Court held,"an extra judicial confession even if believed is considered a very weak piece of evidence and ordinarily is not accepted without independent corroboration. In this case, it was of doubtful character and, therefore it was wrong to rely upon it and hold that it afforded good corroboration to the dying declarations. " ( 23 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant/ accused has also relied on a judgment of this court reported in Moida Ramana v. State of andhra Pradesh. Thisjudgment, in our view, is not relevant for the purpose of the present case. ( 24 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor has relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Chandrakant Chimanlal Desai v. State of Gujaraf. This judgment deals with retraction of confessions and, in our view, it is not relevant for the purpose of the present case. ( 25 ) FOR these reasons, we do not find merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.