JUDGMENT S. D. Anand, J.: This order will dispose of three appeals bearing Criminal Misc. Nos. 374-DB of 1999, 580-DB of 1999 and 884-DB of 2002 as the same have arisen out of FIR No. 156 dated 26.10.1997 under Sections 302 and 379 IPC registered at Police Station, Qadian. 2. The prosecution plea, as upheld by the learned Trial Judge at the trial, was as under:- On the night intervening 25/26.10.1997, Gian Singh slept in the fields to guard the harvested paddy crop. However, he did not return home till about 8.30 A.M on 26.10.1997. Dalbir Kaur PW-1/first informant went over to the fields and found that Gian Singh had been murdered. She further found that out of eight bags of paddy, six were missing. Amarjit Singh, son of Dalbir Kaur and Gian Singh (who was in employment elsewhere and was on leave on that day) was left to guard the dead body of Gian Singh; while Dalbir Kaur PW-1 notified the offence to the Police in the company of Jagdish Singh Sarpanch PW-2. 3. Learned Trial Court indicted the appellant by placing implicit reliance upon the extra judicial confession which the appellant Salwinder Singh alongwith other two co-accused, namely Veer Singh and Arjan Singh, had made before PW-2 Jagdish Singh Sarpanch, PW-3 Joginder Singh and PW-6 Karam Singh respectively. Apart therefrom, learned Trial Court also relied upon the recovery of the weapons of offence at the instance of appellant and other two co-accused in pursuance of their individual disclosure statements. 4. On appraisal of the material obtaining on the file, we find the finding to be unsustainable. In that context, the following facts are noticeable:- 5. Though it cannot be denied that PW-2 Jagdish Singh being the holder of office of Sarpanch was fully qualified to enjoy the confidence of Salwinder Singh appellant in the context, it is apparent from the record that he did not produce Salwinder Singh before the Police on 26.10.1997, though the extra judicial confession by that accused had allegedly been made at about 5.30/6.00 P.M. In his statement to the police, he did not narrate factum of extra judicial confession made by Salwinder Singh to the Police. PW-2 Jagdish Singh conceded that “there is no separate statement on the file only regarding the fact of production of Salwinder Singh before the police.” It is also in his statement that police had recorded his statement at the time he produced Salwinder Singh before it and that he had signed that statement. As noticed in the evidence sheet dated 19.1.1999, the defence called upon the State to produce any statement of PW-2 Jagdish Singh in the context thereof he may have stated his having produced Salwinder Singh before the Police. Confronted with that query, learned Public Prosecutor had to concede that there was no separate statement of Jagdish Singh to the above effect on the file. 6. Insofar as PW-3 Joginder Singh is concerned, he does not hold any public office. He conceded that “ I am neither a Panch nor Sarpanch nor Lambardar, but only a shopkeeper in the village. I had not any affiliation with the Police. However, I used to meet the Police alongwith the panchayat. Our village falls in P.S. Qadian. I do not know who was the S.H.O., P.S. Qadian in those days. I do not know who had worked as SHO, P.S. Qadian prior to that date, nor after the occurrence.” It is, thus, apparent he is not proved to have had any association with the police on the basis whereof Veer Singh could repose confidence in him. Further, he pleaded want of memory about whether his statement regarding production of Veer Singh before the Police had been recorded or not. In the light of that response offered by him, the defence requested for the production of statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of that witness. Learned Public Prosecutor conceded that there was no statement of that witness which may have been recorded by the police. 7. PW-6 Karam Singh also does not hold any public office whatsoever. He is neither a Panch nor Sarpanch nor Lambardar of village. He wanted the Court to believe that “I had not disclosed the factum of extra-judicial confession made by Arjan Singh before me to Dalbir Kaur and her family members.” That averment does not fit him with natural human conduct. On his own showing, PW-1 Dalbir Kaur first informant had informed him in the early hours of the morning that Police would be coming over to Gurudwara Sahab on that day. On his own showing, PW-1 Dalbir Kaur first informant had informed him in the early hours of the morning that Police would be coming over to Gurudwara Sahab on that day. There was, thus, no understandable reason why he would have kept the factum of extra-judicial confession within his bosom and refrained from sharing that piece of information from Dalbir Kaur, who was none else or other than the wife of deceased Gian Singh. He further claimed to have told the police, in course of his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., that he had produced Arjan Singh appellant before it (police). However, that fact is not found to have been specifically mentioned in his statement Ex. DA. Learned Public Prosecutor also conceded before the learned Trial Court that “ there is no other statement of the witness on the point of production of the accused. 8. As would be apparent from the above discussion, the reliance placed by the prosecution upon the extra-judicial confession was misconceived. Evidence in the form of extra judicial confession is obviously a weak type of evidence. If it is corroborated by other reliable pieces of evidence, it may be feasible to base a verdict of conviction thereupon. At the same time, when the Court finds that the person before whom the extra-judicial confession had allegedly been made does not qualify to enjoy the confidence of maker thereof, the Court has to comprehensively hold that evidence in the context is not reliable. 9. In view of the fact that we are discarding the prosecution evidence in the statements of PW-2 Jagdish Singh Sarpanch, PW-3 Joginder Singh and PW-6 Karam Singh on the point of extra-judicial confession made by the appellant/accused, we do not propose attaching any significant value to the evidence pertaining to the recovery got effected by the appellants/accused in pursuance of their individual disclosure statements. 10. In the light of the fore-going discussion, it is held that impugned finding of indictment is not sustainable. The prosecution has not been able to prove the charge against the appellant/accused. The appeal shall stand allowed. The impugned finding of conviction shall stand set aside. Appellants shall stand acquitted of the charge. --------------------