JUDGMENT (Per Bilal Nazki, J.) This is an appeal filed by the accused appellant against the judgment passed by the learned XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur, in S.C.No. 623 of 2003, dated 06-05-2004, convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for Life and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one month. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 04-05-2003 at 6.00 p.m., the accused-appellant committed murder of his wife viz., Smt. Dontina Venkateswaramma, at his house in Kukkalavaripalem Village. 4. On the basis of this allegation, the charge under Section 302 IPC was framed against the accused-appellant. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. Prosecution examined 11 witnesses and exhibited 12 documents. Defence did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence. 6. The investigation in the case started with Ex. P-1 being report filed by the Village Administrative Officer viz., M. Veeraswamy, who was examined as P.W.1. In Ex. P-1 report, he stated that on 04-05-2003 evening around 8.00 p.m., while he was in his house, the appellant-Dontena Venkatswara Reddy came to him and told him that his wife-Dontina Venkateswaramma was having illicit intimacy with one Asodi Srinivasa Reddy, and on number of occasions, he had asked his wife to put an end to their illegal relationship but she did not change, therefore, there was an altercation between him and his wife on that date at 6.00 p.m., and he squeezed her neck with his hands, and she fell down. Then, he trampled forcibly on her neck with his leg catching her both hands, and thus, killed her. It was further reported that the appellant pleaded P.W.1 to hand over him to the Police and to request the Police not to beat him. Then, the Village Administrative Officer (P.W.1) went to the house of the appellant and found Venkateswaramma, the wife of the appellant, lying dead on the floor. Then, he submitted his report (Ex.P-1) and the appellant surrendered to the Police. 7. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that this is the only evidence in the case to show that an extra judicial confession was made by the appellant before P.W.1. Then, he submitted his report (Ex.P-1) and the appellant surrendered to the Police. 7. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that this is the only evidence in the case to show that an extra judicial confession was made by the appellant before P.W.1. He further submitted that an extra judicial confession without any corroborative evidence may not be believed, as it would be dangerous to convict a person solely on the basis of such extra judicial statement. 8. Now coming to the evidence of P.W.1 before the trial Court, in his evidence, P.W.1 stated that he was resident of Bapatla, he worked as Village Administrative Officer of West Bapatla Revenue Village, from 1992 to 2002, and from 2002, he had been working as Assistant in Revenue Department in Bapatla. He further stated that he knew the appellant and while he was working as Village Administrative Officer in Bapatla West, the village to which the appellant belongs i.e., Kukkalavaripalem village, was within his jurisdiction, therefore, he had acquaintance with the appellant. He further stated that on 04-05-2003 at about 8.00 p.m., the appellant came to his house and confessed before him that he killed his wife-Venkateswaramma as she had developed illicit intimacy with one Srinu. After the appellant made confession before him, P.W.1 went to the house of the appellant and found the dead body of the deceased. Then, he gave Ex. P-1 report to the Police. In his cross-examination, P.W.1 stated that he has no personal acquaintance with the appellant, the appellant never visited his house prior to the incident, and Kukkalavaripalem Village was 4 km away from his house. P.W.1 further stated that he did not inform the Police immediately after confession by the appellant, and he did not inform anybody about the incident before giving report to the Police. He went to the house of the appellant at Kukkalavaripalem Village on his scooter at about 9.00 p.m. or 8.45 p.m., and found some people on the road near the house of the appellant. They informed that the appellant had killed his wife. He did not collect the names of public who informed him that the appellant killed his wife. He admitted that he used to be a mediator and write panchanamas at the request of Police, and he might have written about 100 panchanamas. They informed that the appellant had killed his wife. He did not collect the names of public who informed him that the appellant killed his wife. He admitted that he used to be a mediator and write panchanamas at the request of Police, and he might have written about 100 panchanamas. On the next day i.e., on 05-05-2003 morning at about 8.00 a.m., the Police came to Kikkalavaripalem Village. He further stated that he himself did not examine anybody, and did not observe either the colour of the dress worn by the deceased or her body complexion or the direction in which the doorways of the house of the appellant were facing. He further stated that no one accompanied him when he visited the house of the appellant. He denied the suggestion that the appellant had not made a confession before him. 9. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the evidence of P.W.1 is highly unbelievable because P.W.1 was living 4 kms away from the house of the appellant, he had no relationship with the appellant, and he was also not holding any office, which would give an impression to the appellant that P.W.1 could save him. He further contended that P.W.1 appears to be a stock witness of the Police, as according to his own admission; he was a witness to at least 100 panchanamas. 10. We agree with the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant and hold that the testimony of P.W.1 does not inspire the confidence of this Court. 11. Coming to the evidence of P.W.2, who is related to the deceased, she stated that even years back, the sister of the deceased had been given in marriage to the appellant, fouryears after the marriage, she died and she came to know that she committed suicide by taking poison. P.W.2 further stated that within one month of the death of his first wife, the appellant married the deceased, who is the sister of his first wife and started living in Kikkalavaripalem, and they had no child. The appellant and his wife (deceased) went to Gudur to eke out their livelihood along with one Srinivasa Reddy, who is the co-brother of the appellant. The appellant and his wife (deceased) went to Gudur to eke out their livelihood along with one Srinivasa Reddy, who is the co-brother of the appellant. Ten days thereafter, the deceased came back to her parents house and on 01-05-2003, in the absence of the parents of the deceased, the appellant came and took the deceased along with him. On 04-05-2003 at about 1.00 p.m., they received a message about the death of the deceased and on 05-05-2003 at 7.00 p.m., she along with other relatives went to the house of the deceased and found the dead body of the deceased lying on the floor. She enquired the people, who had gathered there, and came to know that the appellant, after killing the deceased, had gone to the Police Station along with the Village Administrative Officer to surrender. 12. Obviously, the testimony of this witness does not connect the appellant to the offence with which he was charged. 13. P.W.3 is the father of the deceased. He stated that appellant had married his daughter five years back, the first wife of the appellant was also his daughter, and the appellant had killed his first wife. Five months prior to the death of the deceased, appellant left the deceased at his house as there had been a quarrel between the appellant and the deceased, and four days prior to the death of the deceased, in his absence, appellant came to his house and took the deceased along with him by informing the neighbours. P.W. 3 further stated the appellant suspected the character of the deceased on the ground that she had developed illicit intimacy with another man, and due to that suspicion, appellant left the deceased at his house, and after four days took the deceased to his house, killed her and surrendered before the Police. The neighbour of the appellant sent a message to this witness, and by the time he went to the house of the appellant, he found the deceased lying dead on the ground. 14. The evidence of this witness also does not connect the appellant in any way to the alleged killing of the deceased. 15. P.W. 4 is the sister of the deceased. She almost made a similar statement to that of P.Ws. 2 and 3. 16. 14. The evidence of this witness also does not connect the appellant in any way to the alleged killing of the deceased. 15. P.W. 4 is the sister of the deceased. She almost made a similar statement to that of P.Ws. 2 and 3. 16. P.W.5, who is also a relative of the deceased, stated that appellant took the deceased from her parents house four days prior to the date of occurrence, and on the date of occurrence, when he came back from his work to take lunch, he found the deceased sitting at his house. He enquired her as to when she had returned from her parents' house and whether the appellant was looking after her affectionately. The deceased told him that four days back, she had come and appellant was looking after her properly. After taking lunch, he went back to his work and returned at 8.00 p.m., and came to know that the deceased was killed by the appellant. 17. P.W. 6 turned hostile. 18. P.W.7 is the Doctor, who conducted the postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and found the following injuries: '1. A contusion on right side of the neck 6 cm x 4 cm and a contusion on left side of the neck measuring in size of 4 cm x 1 cm. On deep dissection, I found extravagation of blood in the subcutaneous tissues of neck is seen. 2. Crescentic abrasions four in number are seen on both sides of the neck of sizes variable from 1 cm to 2 cm. to 1 cm x 5 cm. 3.2 scratch marks are seen infront of the neck below the chin of sizes 1.5 cm x 5 cm x 1 cm x 5cm. 4. Inward fracture of right greater cornuva of the hyoid bone is present. P.W. 7 doctor opined that the deceased would have died due to pressure over the neck 12 to 24 hours prior to the postmortem examination. 19. PW.8 is the photographer, who took photographs of the dead body of the deceased on a requisition given by the Police. 20. P.W. 9, who was the Secretary of Bapatla Panchayat, stated that he acted as mediator to Ex. P-10 inquest report. 21. PW. 10 and 11 are the investigating officers. 22. 19. PW.8 is the photographer, who took photographs of the dead body of the deceased on a requisition given by the Police. 20. P.W. 9, who was the Secretary of Bapatla Panchayat, stated that he acted as mediator to Ex. P-10 inquest report. 21. PW. 10 and 11 are the investigating officers. 22. There is no evidence connecting the appellant to the guilt except the so-called extrajudicial confession having been made to PW.1. If the statement of P.W.1 is eschewed, there remains no evidence on the basis of which the appellant could have been convicted. Since we have not believed the extra judicial confession, which was pressed into service through P.W.1 by the prosecution, we do not find any ground to uphold the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge. 23. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. He judgment of the learned XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur, in S.C.No. 623 of 2003, dated 6th May, 2004, convicting and sentencing the accused-appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC is hereby set aside. The appellant shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. The fine amount, if any, paid by the accused-appellant shall be refunded.