Judgment D. D. SINHA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Shri. Daga, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri. Ahirkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent. ( 2 ) THE impugned judgment, and order dated 9-2-2001 is passed by the Sessions judge, Buldhana in Sessions Case No. 116/ 2000 whereby appellant is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and pay fine of rupees one thousand, and in default of payment of fine, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months. ( 3 ) THE case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is as follows :- the appellant and deceased Shriram, at the relevant time, were working as agricultural labourers in the field of one Ayyaseth, who was resident of Chikhali. The field of ayyaseth was at the distance of about 1 km. from village Chandhai, which was at the short distance from Chikhali town. The appellant as well as deceased Shriram at the relevant time were doing the duty of Watchman in the said field and, therefore, were required to reside in the agricultural field itself. ( 4 ) ON 7-9-2000, at about 8. 30 p. m. , appellant and deceased Shriram returned to village Chandhai and carried their food in tiffin boxes with them for taking meal in the field itself. Both of them went together to the field of Ayyaseth. At about 10 p. m. on the day of incident, appellant alone came to village chandhai and told complainant PW-1 Tejrao (maternal uncle of deceased Shriram) as well as PW-5 Pankorbai (mother of deceased shriram) and others that thieves had come to the field of Ayyaseth and they were beating deceased Shriram. Thereafter PW-1 Tejrao and some other persons along with appellant rushed to the field of Ayyaseth. Deceased shriram was in the shed constructed for installation of electric motor, which was known as 'engine house'. The door of the engine house was locked from outside. Deceased Shriram gave key from inside to PW- 1 Tejrao, who opened the lock and found that shriram was lying in the said room. He was moving his hands and feet and foul smell was coming from his mouth. PW-1 Tejrao and his companions kept deceased Shriram in a bullock-cart and brought him to the Hospital at Chikhali. Deceased Shriram gave key from inside to PW- 1 Tejrao, who opened the lock and found that shriram was lying in the said room. He was moving his hands and feet and foul smell was coming from his mouth. PW-1 Tejrao and his companions kept deceased Shriram in a bullock-cart and brought him to the Hospital at Chikhali. The Doctor in the Hospital at chikhali advised them to take Shriram to general Hospital at Buldhana. While Shriram was being taken to the General Hospital, buldhana, he died on the way. ( 5 ) IT is the case of the prosecution that appellant told PW-1 Tejrao and other witnesses that he administered poison to shriram through liquor. PW-1 Tejrao at about 1. 30 o'clock in the night intervening 7-9-2000 and 8-9-2000 went to the Police Station, chikhali and gave oral report of the incident, which was reduced into writing by PW-7 PSI raghunath vide Exh. 18 and offence under section 307 of Indian Penal Code was registered. Statements of some of the witnesses came to be recorded. A panchanama of scene of offence was prepared (Exh. 21 ). One tin containing endosulphan poison, one glass bottle smelling liquor, one glass smelling alcohol, another glass of plastic and one wrist watch with broken belt were found on the scene of offence and all these articles were seized vide panchanama (Exh. 22 ). Thereafter information was received by Police sub- inspector that Shriram succumbed to the injuries and, therefore, offence was converted in Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. ( 6 ) THE post-mortem examination was conducted by PW-6 Dr. Patil on 8-9-2000 itself. The muddemal articles were forwarded to Chemical Analyser, Nagpur for analysis. Viscera was collected from the dead body of shriram by Medical Officer and same was forwarded to the Chemical Analyser for analysis. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant. Charge was framed under Section 302 of indian Penal Code, which was explained and read over to the appellant, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The defence of the appellant is that of denial and false implication. ( 7 ) SHRI. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant. Charge was framed under Section 302 of indian Penal Code, which was explained and read over to the appellant, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The defence of the appellant is that of denial and false implication. ( 7 ) SHRI. Daga, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that in the instant case, conduct of the appellant, even as per evidence of PW-1 Tejrao, PW-4 Shivaji and PW-5 pankorbai, of approaching these witnesses and informing them that thieves had come to the field and were beating deceased Shriram is consistent with innocence of the appellant. It was contended that if the appellant was perpetrator of the crime, he would not have approached these witnesses and would not have called them on the scene of occurrence. It was submitted that conduct of the appellant creates suspicion about the prosecution case. Learned Counsel Shri, Daga further submitted that evidence of prosecution witnesses further shows that appellant was with deceased shriram right from the beginning till he was taken to the Hospital from Chikhali to buldhana and, therefore, this conduct of the appellant is also consistent with his innocence. ( 8 ) IT was contended by learned counsel Shri. Daga that evidence of PW-1 tejrao and PW-5 Pankorbai demonstrates that appellant made an extra judicial confession to these witnesses and admitted his guilt. However, there is inconsistency in the testimonies of these two witnesses so far as extra judicial confession is concerned, which creates suspicion about extra judicial confession alleged to have been made by the appellant to these witnesses. Similarly, as per evidence of PW-4 Shivaji, the appellant told him that deceased Shriram had evil eye on his wife and, therefore, appellant administered poison to Shriram through liquor. It was contended that extra judicial confession alleged to have been given to this witness is inconsistent with extra judicial confession alleged to have been given by the appellant to other witnesses, which creates doubt about authenticity of the extra judicial confession alleged to have been given by the appellant and, therefore, conviction could not have been based on the said evidence of extra judicial confession. Learned Counsel Shri. Daga, therefore, submitted that conviction recorded by the trial Court on the basis of the evidence of extra judicial confession is unsustainable in law. Learned Counsel Shri. Daga, therefore, submitted that conviction recorded by the trial Court on the basis of the evidence of extra judicial confession is unsustainable in law. In order to substantiate his contentions, reliance is placed by the learned Counsel on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Ballu and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana (1997 SCC (Cri) 234) and Jaspal Singh alias Pali Vs. State of Punjab (1997 SCC (Cri) 358 ). ( 9 ) SHRI. Ahirkar, learned Additional public Prosecutor for the respondent, submitted that in the instant case, evidence of extra judicial confession made by the appellant to PW-1 Tejrao, PW-4 Shivaji and PW-5 pankorbai is cogent, truthful and also corroborated by the medical evidence of PW- 6 Dr. Patil and, therefore, trial Court was justified in accepting evidence of extra judicial confession and convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian penal Code. In order to substantiate his contentions, learned Additional Public prosecutor placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ram Khilari Vs. State of Rajasthan (1999 ALL MR (Cri) 520 ). ( 10 ) WE have given our anxious thought to various contentions canvassed by the learned Counsel for the parties. It is no doubt true that case of the prosecution is mainly based on extra judicial confession made by the appellant to the prosecution witnesses and, therefore, it will be appropriate to scrutinise evidence of these witnesses. ( 11 ) PW-1 Tejrao in his deposition has stated that on the day of incident at about 10 p. m. appellant came to his house and told him that thieves had come in the field of ayyaseth and, therefore, this witness along with other villagers went to the field of ayyas,eth. When they reached the field of ayyaseth, they heard noise of the door of the engine house, which was in the field and, therefore, this witness along with others went to the engine house and noticed that engine house was locked from outside and deceased shriram was inside the engine house. Deceased Shriram pushed the key from the door of the engine house. This witness therefore opened the lock of the engine house and noticed that Shriram was lying inside the engine house and moving his hands and feet only. Deceased Shriram pushed the key from the door of the engine house. This witness therefore opened the lock of the engine house and noticed that Shriram was lying inside the engine house and moving his hands and feet only. Foul smell was coming from mouth of deceased Shriram and, therefore, he was put in a bullock-cart and brought to the government Hospital at Chikhali by this witness along with others. This witness has specifically stated in his examination-in-chief that when he was in the hospital at Chikhali, appellant told him that there was quarrel between him and deceased Shriram on account of picking the chilli fruits and deceased shriram had evil eye on his wife and, therefore, he administered poison to deceased Shriram. The appellant also told this witness that deceased Shriram was confined in the engine house and he locked the door of the said house from outside. The cross-examination of this witness does not reveal any material contradiction or omission in his Police statement. ( 12 ) SIMILARLY, we cannot close our eyes to the fact that oral report (Exh. 18) was lodged by PW-1 Tejrao at about 1. 30 O'clock in the night itself i. e. almost immediately after the incident in question. The conduct of PW- 1 Tejrao of lodging oral report without lapse of any time after the incident rules out possibility of concoction and fabrication. Similarly, there is no evidence to show that this witness was on the inimical terms with the appellant and in absence thereof, there is no reason for this witness to falsely implicate appellant in the crime in question. The evidence of PW-1 Tejrao corroborates all the material particulars of the prosecution case disclosed by him in his oral report (Exh. 18) and appears to be truthful. ( 13 ) SO far as evidence of PW-4 shivaji is concerned, it has come in his examination-in-chief that at about 9. 15 p. m. on the day of incident, appellant came running to the village and informed the villagers that thieves had come and, therefore, this witness along with PW-1 Tejrao, PW-2 Gajanan and others went to the agricultural field of ayyaseth. They heard the noise coming from the engine house and, therefore, they went near the said room, which was locked from outside. They heard the noise coming from the engine house and, therefore, they went near the said room, which was locked from outside. The person, who was inside, pushed the key outside, PW-1 Tejrao took the key and opened the lock and found that deceased Shriram was in the said room. Foul smell was coming from the mouth of Shriram, who was unconscious at that time. Deceased Shriram was admitted in the Government Hospital at Chikhali where appellant told him that he administered poison to deceased Shriram through liquor because deceased Shriram had evil eye on his wife. Nothing worthwhile is brought by the defence in the cross-examination of this witness to affect his ocular testimony. This witness is an independent person and there is nothing on record to show that there was any kind of animosity between him and appellant and, therefore, there is no reason for this witness to falsely implicate the appellant. Apart from that, testimony of this witness so far as extra judicial confession given by the appellant is concerned, in our considered view, is consistent with the evidence of PW-1 Tejrao in this regard except the fact that poison was administered to deceased Shriram through liquor has not been stated by PW-1 Tejrao in this testimony though it is specifically stated by PW-1 Tejrao that appellant told him that he administered poison to deceased Shriram. This inconsistency, in our considered view, is not a material inconsistency so as to create even doubt about authenticity of the evidence of this witness insofar as extra judicial confession is concerned and, therefore, contention canvassed by the learned Counsel shri. Daga in this regard cannot be accepted. ( 14 ) PW-5 Pankorbai has stated in her deposition that on the day of incident, at about 10-10. 30 p. m. appellant came to her house and told her that thieves had come to the field of ayyaseth and they were beating deceased shriram and they were also trying to administer poison (endrine) to Shriram. It has come in the testimony of this witness that appellant also told her that thieves forced him to administer poison to Shriram and accordingly he also administered poison to Shriram. It has come in the testimony of this witness that appellant also told her that thieves forced him to administer poison to Shriram and accordingly he also administered poison to Shriram. After going through the cross-examination of this witness, we find that there is an omission in her Police statement in respect of beating given to shriram by thieves and the thieves forced the appellant to administer poison to Shriram and, therefore, he administered poison to Shriram. However, that does not adversely affect the testimony of this witness in respect of extra judicial confession made by the appellant. It is no doubt true that PW-5 Pankorbai being mother of deceased Shriram, there are some exaggerations in her testimony. However, those exaggerations are inadequate to demolish her ocular testimony so far as it relates to extra judicial confession made by the appellant to her. The evidence of this witness, in our considered view, is also consistent with the testimonies of other witnesses to whom extra judicial confession was made by the appellant. ( 15 ) THE principle of receiving voluntary confession is on the presumption that no person would voluntarily make a statement, which is against his interest unless it is true. It is well settled that a confession, if voluntarily and truthfully made, is an efficacious proof of guilt. At the same time, Court should carefully examine the confession and compare it with the rest of the evidence in the light of the surrounding circumstances and probabilities of the case and if it appears to the Court that onfession is voluntary and truthful and also orroborated by other evidence, there is no legal impediment in placing reliance on such confession made by the accused to the withnesses, which is of extra judicial nature. It is no doubt true that normally accused shall not make extra judicial confession to unknown person or a stranger and would make such confession only to the persons, who are known to him and in whom, he reposes confidence. However, there is no hard and fast rule that extra judicial confession made by the accused even to the unknown person cannot be accepted. The acceptability of extra judicial confession would necessarily depend upon facts and circumstances of each case, nature of extra judicial confession, to whom and under what circumstances it is made. However, there is no hard and fast rule that extra judicial confession made by the accused even to the unknown person cannot be accepted. The acceptability of extra judicial confession would necessarily depend upon facts and circumstances of each case, nature of extra judicial confession, to whom and under what circumstances it is made. ( 16 ) IN the instant case, evidence of extra judicial confession is corroborated by the medical evidence of PW-6 Dr. Patil, who has deposed that cause of death of Shriram was due to poisoning and after going through the chemical Analyser's report, the Doctor has opined that death of Shriram was due to endosulphan poison. It is, therefore, evident that medical evidence corroborates evidence of extra judicial confession. ( 17 ) IN the instant case, appellant made an extra judicial confession to the persons who were not only known to him, but were also from his village. PW-1 Tejrao is the real maternal uncle of deceased Shriram, who was working with the appellant as a Watchman on the field of Ayyaseth. PW-5 Pankorbai is mother of deceased Shriram. Therefore, appellant was closely acquainted with these witnesses. Similarly, PW-4 Shivaji was also known to the appellant being a resident of the same village where appellant at the relevant time was residing. It is, therefore, evident that in the instant case, extra judicial confession made by the appellant is not to the unknown persons or strangers, but to the witnesses, who were very well known to him. There is nothing on record to suggest that witnesses Tejrao, shivaji and Pankorbai had any reason to falsely implicate the appellant in the crime in question. The extra judicial confession, in view of evidence of prosecution witnesses on record, appears to be voluntary and truthful and inspires confidence and same is also corroborated by the medical evidence and, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, in our considered view, the trial court was justified in convicting the appellant for the offence of murder. ( 18 ) THE judgments of the Apex Court cited and relied on by the learned Counsel for the appellant, because of different and distinct nature of facts and circumstances involved in the case in hand, are of no help to the appellant. ( 19 ) FOR the reasons stated hereinabove, appeal suffers from lack of merit and hence, the same is dismissed. ( 19 ) FOR the reasons stated hereinabove, appeal suffers from lack of merit and hence, the same is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.