Judgment F.I. REBELLO, J.:- The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment of the learned Court of Sessions. Grater Mumbai in Sessions Case No.1134 of 2001 dated 21.11.2003 whereby the appellant is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for life and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- and In default to suffer further R.J. for one year. 2. The case of the prosecution was that the accused and deceased were friends. There was a theft at the place where the appellant and deceased were working about 3.1/ 2 months prior to the incident. The deceased informed P.W. No.4 whose money was stolen that it was the accused who had stolen the money and on account of this, the accused had a grudge against the deceased and had threatened him. The incident occurred on 20.08.2001 on which day, according to prosecution, the appellant at about 6.00 a.m. hit a stone slab on the head of the deceased thereby causing his death. A complaint was lodged on 20.08.2001 by Shri. Ketan Bhatt, P.W. No.1 against an unknown person. 3. The eye-witness, if any is Pradip Mohan @ Bhuvelal Sahu, P.W. No.8 who according to prosecution was sleeping at the same place as deceased Rajesh. At about 6.00 a.m. on hearing a big noise, he got up and saw the accused Shashikant standing and then running away. He gave chase but could not catch the accused. When he came back to the place, he saw Rajesh (deceased) lying in a pool of blood and there was heavy bleeding from the head injury. A big and heavy stone was lying at the scene of the incident. As he was scared, he left the place and met his friend Anil and Sagar. He came to know that police were in search of him. One constable met him at C.P. tank. He went to the police station where he was interrogated and his statement was recorded. This witness therefore, is not an eyewitness 10 the actual incident but a witness who had seen the accused running away from the scene of offence after he heard the noise and got up. 4. The prosecution has tried to establish their case based on the following: (a) last seen theory through the evidence of P.W. No.8 Pradeep Mohan @ Bhuvelal Sahu. 4. The prosecution has tried to establish their case based on the following: (a) last seen theory through the evidence of P.W. No.8 Pradeep Mohan @ Bhuvelal Sahu. (b) extra-judicial confession through the evidence of P.W. No.3 and P.W. No.6. (c) motive through evidence of P.W. No.4 and P.W. No.8 and seizure of blood stained cloths through the evidence of P.W.No.7. At this stage itself, we may point out that the shirt and the pant were sent for the report of the C.A. being Item Nos.9 and 10. No blood was detected of them. 5. We therefore, first proceed to consider the evidence of P.W. No.8 and whether it can be relied for the theory of "last seen". According to P.W. No.8, he knew both the deceased and the accused as they were doing the same work and they used to sleep in the varandah of Garwadi Building which is adjacent to Hargovind Desai wadi. The length and width of the said varandah as per the spot panchanama shows that the varandah was 3.1/2 ft wide and length was about 21 ft 10 inch. According to this witness, on the previous night he and the deceased had gone to see a movie. After the movie was over, they had meals and come to C.P. tank and talked for some time with Phoolwala Raja. He then went to sleep at usual place and after some time Rajesh also slept. In the morning, he heard a big noise and that woke him up. He saw the accused running away. According to this witness himself, the accused and deceased used to sleep in the same place. After the purported incident of theft, it is not his case that the accused stopped sleeping at the place. The other aspect of the matter is that he got up at 6.00 a.m. It is not his case that he saw the deceased in a pool of blood and then chased the accused. His case is that he saw the accused running away and he run after him. It is 'in-explicable as to why when the witness was friend of the accused, because accused was running, he ran after the accused without knowing why he was running. The other aspect of the matter is that after retuning back and seeing the dead body, he did not go and make a complaint. It is 'in-explicable as to why when the witness was friend of the accused, because accused was running, he ran after the accused without knowing why he was running. The other aspect of the matter is that after retuning back and seeing the dead body, he did not go and make a complaint. His only explanation is that he was scared and informed Anil and Sagar. The prosecution has not examined Anil and Sagar which could have corroborated this aspect of the evidence of P. W. No.8. In the cross-examination, it is stated that the whole day on 20.08.2001, he did not visit Garwadi Building and his statement was recorded on 21.8.2001. He denied that on the date of incident, there was rain and therefore, he could not identify the accused. There is no other witness for the last seen theory. The evidence of P.W. No.8, must be tested on the touch stone of law as observed by the Supreme Court in Ali Mollaha and another Vs. State of West Bengal, 1996 Cri.L.J. 3842. This witness who was the first to have seen the deceased who was his friend ought to have been the first person to file a complaint and not taken steps to evade meeting the police or informing any other co-employee. Merely stating that he was afraid will not amount to an explanation. 6. The further evidence on record is of P.W. Nos.3 and 6, who were examined to prove the extra-judicial confession made by the accused to them. Before we consider the evidence we may only examine the test which the court must consider in considering the evidentiary value of the extra-judicial confession. In Shaikh Vs. State of Assam, AIR 2005 SC 1585, the Supreme Court observed that an extra-judicial confession has to be tested after considering the credentials of the witnesses. In Sandeep Vs. State of Haryana, (2001)9 S.C.C. 41 , the Supreme Court held that for accepting the extra-judicial confession, the prosecution must bring on record the reasons for the accused to go to respondents to confess their crime. In the light of this position in law, let us examine the evidence of P.W. Nos.3 and 6. P.W. No.3 Sakharam Rajpure in his evidence has stated that he knew both the accused and deceased as they were working as labourers along with him. In the light of this position in law, let us examine the evidence of P.W. Nos.3 and 6. P.W. No.3 Sakharam Rajpure in his evidence has stated that he knew both the accused and deceased as they were working as labourers along with him. According to him, on the 20th day of August, about two years previous to his deposition, at 5.30 a.m. he and Ramprasad P.W. No.6 were sitting nearby C.P. Tank bus stop by the side of one Florist Shop. At that time accused came there and enquired as to where Suresh Charasi, P.W. No.4 and Rajesh (deceased) were. According to this witness, he told the accused, that he was not aware where they were, where upon he left the place. After half an hour, he came back again and told the witnesses that he had thrown a stone on the head of Rajesh and he should be informed whether Rajesh (deceased) was dead or not. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that he normally sleeps at about 8.30 to 9.00 p.m. and wakes up at 5.00 a.m. On 20.08.2001 he had no work and was sitting with Ramprasad near the bus stop for twenty minutes and thereafter left the place. He again stated that on that date, he left the place near the bus stop within 15 to 20 minutes and did not return to the bus stop. He reiterated that the accused Shashikant himself told him about the incident. P.W. No.6 is Ramprakash Gupta and according to this witness also on 20.08.2001 at 5.30 a.m. he and Sakharam (P.W. No.3) were sitting near Florist shop and at that time, accused came there and enquired about Suresh and Rajesh (deceased). He informed him that Suresh was sleeping at his place and they were not aware where Rajesh was. There upon the accused, left the place and after half an hour, came back and informed that he has thrown a stone on the head of Rajesh and they should inform if Rajesh was declared dead. In the cross-examination, he has stated that on that date he was sitting near the bus stop for about one hour. He denied that they were sitting for about 15 minutes. He also stated that he had no work on that day. He denied that he was deposing falsely at the instance of Suresh Charasi. In the cross-examination, he has stated that on that date he was sitting near the bus stop for about one hour. He denied that they were sitting for about 15 minutes. He also stated that he had no work on that day. He denied that he was deposing falsely at the instance of Suresh Charasi. Firstly, the first inconsistency in the evidence of these two witnesses is about the time they sat near the bus stop between the accused asking about the whereabouts of the deceased and P.W. No.4 and subsequently coming to the place where they were sitting on the second occasion. The second aspect of the matter IS that the accused according to P.W. No.8 used to sleep at the same place where the deceased was sleeping, then why should the accused come early in the morning and enquire from P.W. Nos.3 and 6 about the whereabouts of the deceased. Secondly assuming that the prosecution case that Rs.5,000/- were stolen from P.W. No.4, some months earlier as to why suddenly in the morning of 20th August, the accused would seek the address of P.W. No.4 and the deceased. Then we come to the next part of the evidence to the effect of the accused returning and confessing to P.W. Nos.3 and 6 about throwing stone on the deceased. According to P.W. No.8, the accused ran away after seeing him at the place of incident. In other words, an attempt on the part of the accused either to disassociate himself from the incident or hide from the incident. What then is the remorse for the accused to come and confess to these witnesses that he had thrown a stone on the head of the deceased. P.W. Nos.3 and 6 could not have assisted the accused. The other aspect of the evidence of P.W. Nos.3 and 6 is that they had no work on that day. There is nothing in their evidence to show that they had been to the police station on 20.08.200 I informing the police about this extra-judicial confession. In these circumstances, in our opinion, doubts arise about the purp0l1ed extrajudicial confession made by the accused to P.W. Nos.3 and 6. Atleast there are no reasons brought by the prosecution explaining the reasons for the confession made by the accused to them. In State of Punjab Vs. In these circumstances, in our opinion, doubts arise about the purp0l1ed extrajudicial confession made by the accused to P.W. Nos.3 and 6. Atleast there are no reasons brought by the prosecution explaining the reasons for the confession made by the accused to them. In State of Punjab Vs. Bhajan Singh and Others, (1975)4 Supreme Court Cases 472 S.C. the Hon'ble court has stated that an evidence of extra-judicial confession in the very nature of things is a weak piece of evidence. The evidence must inspire confidence and must be plausible. A person who commits murder and after taking precaution of trying to disassociate himself from the incident by running away from the scene after the commission of offence to acquire sudden boldness to confess his guilt to these witnesses without any explanation from the prosecution, must be read with caution. 7. In the case of circumstantial evidence, prosecution must also establish motive. In the instant case, the prosecution has examined P.W. No.4. According to this witness, he was Supervisor in the catering business and he knew the deceased who was working with him as also the accused as they were working with them. The deceased and accused were friends. According to him on 9.5.2001, somebody had stolen cash of Rs.5,000/- and at that time the deceased Rajesh told him that accused had committed theft. He tried to contact the accused but he was not traceable. According to this witness, the deceased had told him that Shashi was threatening him of dire consequences and that Shashi told that he will also kill him. He was informed by Sakharam that Shashi committed murder of Rajesh. In the cross-examination, he was confronted with the statement whether the purported threats given by the accused have not been so recorded. Neither in the evidence of P.W. No.3, P.W. No.6 and P.W. No.8 has it come on record that after the purported theft the accused was not working in the same place nor if P.W.4 whose money was stolen in the sum of Rs.5,000/- made any attempt either to file police complaint or to get the money back. That the accused and deceased were sleeping in the same place has come on record. Nothing happened between 9.5.2001 and 20.08.2001 which would indicate that the accused was provoked into committing assault on the deceased. That the accused and deceased were sleeping in the same place has come on record. Nothing happened between 9.5.2001 and 20.08.2001 which would indicate that the accused was provoked into committing assault on the deceased. In the light of this evidence, the motive of the accused for committing the crime appears doubtful. 8. The clothes of the accused were attached and for that purpose the prosecution examined Brijmohan Zha, P.W. No.7. According to him, on 22.08.2001 at about 9.45 a.m. one accused was in custody. The police attached clothes. He does not depose to any blood stains on the clothes. In the C.A.s report, no blood stains were found on the said clothes. According to P.I. Vasant Tajane, P.W. No.9, they were in search of the accused and on receiving information on 22.8.200 I they laid a trap in the vicinity of Kannamwar Nagar and they apprehended the accused at 9.45 a.m. on that day. The investigation was being carried out by the L.T. Marg Police station. If according to P.W. No.9, the accused was arrested at 9.45 a.m. in the morning, he could not have been present in the police station when P.W. No.1 was called there at 9.45 a.m. 9. In a case based on circumstantial evidence each link of the chain must be established by the prosecution to show the culpability of the accused. In the instant case, as we have pointed out earlier, the evidence of P.W. No.8 that he had seen the accused at the time of the offence raises serious doubts, considering the conduct of the witness. Similarly, there is no rational explanation about the fact that if the accused ran away from the place and was apprehended on 22.8.2001, as to why after committing the crime and running away from the place, he would narrate the incident to P.W. no.3 and P.W. No.6 and then abscond. We have earlier pointed out the discrepancies in the evidence of P.W. Nos.3 and 6 about their presence at the spot when accused is alleged to have arrived and that made the extra-judicial confession. In our opinion, it does not stand to any reason. The motive alleged is about three months earlier to the incident. We have earlier pointed out the discrepancies in the evidence of P.W. Nos.3 and 6 about their presence at the spot when accused is alleged to have arrived and that made the extra-judicial confession. In our opinion, it does not stand to any reason. The motive alleged is about three months earlier to the incident. There is nothing on record to show that after that the accused was not working in the same establishment and or that his services were terminated or the reason for the assault after having three months of the purported theft. On the issue of motive, the prosecution has also been unable to prove its case satisfactorily and it raises a serious doubt. 10. Considering the totality of evidence before us and in the absence of reasonable cause for making the extra-judicial confession and also the so called last seen theory advanced by P.W. No.8 being doubtful, in our opinion, the prosecution has failed to establish their case beyond reasonable doubt. The accused will have to be given the benefit of doubt. 11. In the light of the above, the conviction and sentence is set aside. The accused be set forth at liberty, if not required in any other case. Appeal allowed.