JUDGMENT (Per D.S.R.Varma, J.) Heard Smt. S. Hemalatha, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-sole accused and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. 2. This criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr. P .C.') is directed against the judgment, dated 21-11-2006, in Sessions Case NO.380 of 2006, passed by the VII Additional Sessions Judge, Kakinada, East Godavari district in convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'I.P.C.') and sentencing him to undergo 'rigorous imprisonment for life' and to pay a fine of RS.500/- (Rupees five hundred only), in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of three months. 3. The case of prosecution, in brief, is that the appellant is the husband and father of Sirisala Bhushanam and Kanchipetta Bhulakshmi (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased 1 and 2'), respectively. Actually, it appears that deceased No.1 was originally married to some other person quite some time back, later on she developed intimacy with the appellant, started living with him at Subbayyammapeta village of Gandepalli Mandal. During the association of deceased No.1 with the appellant, undisputedly she begot4 children, out of which deceased No.2 is the only daughter. It is also an undisputed fact that deceased No.2 was married to someone and was deserted and therefore, she came back to her parents i.e., the appellant and deceased No.1, and started living with them. The appellant had an own house at some other place at Subbayyammapeta. Some repair works were going on to the said house and therefore, they had been living in a hut raised in the land belonging to Tetala Dorayya Reddy (P.W.6), which is slightly away from the village. On 25-3-2006 the appellant allegedly went to the hut and requested deceased No.1 to give a sum of about Rs.500/- to pay wages to the coolies, who were constructing his own house. It is the allegation that both the deceased refused to give the money and abused the appellant. The appellant felt insulted and consequently, on the same day at about 8 p.m., during night he went to the hut, where both the deceased were sleeping. The appellant picked up a knife, which was available in the eves of the hut, hacked both the deceased indiscriminately causing their instantaneous death. Afterwards, the appellant left the hut. The appellant felt insulted and consequently, on the same day at about 8 p.m., during night he went to the hut, where both the deceased were sleeping. The appellant picked up a knife, which was available in the eves of the hut, hacked both the deceased indiscriminately causing their instantaneous death. Afterwards, the appellant left the hut. Again on 26-3-2006 in the morning the appellant went to the hut, saw the dead bodies of his wife and daughter, and returned to the village and informed the villagers and his son Sirisala Appala Raju (P.W.3), that someone had killed deceased 1 and 2. On 13-4-2006 at about 2 p.m., the appellant approached Satyavolu Satyanarayana Murthy, Panchayat Secretary, Subbayyammapeta village (P.W.11) and confessed about committal of the offence and his statement was reduced into writing and the report given by P .W.11 to the Circle Inspector of Police, Jaggampet, was marked as Ex.P-8. Subsequently, P.W.11 took the appellant to the police station. On the same day at about 11 a.m., Yanala Satyanarayana (P.W.1), who is the younger brother of deceased No.1, gave a report (Ex. P-15) to the Station House Officer, Gandepalli, pursuant to which, a case in Crime No.26 of 2006 fort he offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C., was registered against the appellant and issued F.I.R., Ex.P-16. The Investigating Officer took up investigation and after completing all the formalities charge-sheet had been filed. 4. A charge under Section 3021.P.C., was framed against the appellant and the same was read over and explained to him in Telugu, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. The prosecution, in order to substantiate its case, had examined P .Ws.1 to 14 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-17. M.Os.1 to 17 were also marked. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the defence. 6. The trial Court, after appreciating the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, found the accused guilty and punished him for life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. Hence this appeal. 7. M.Os.1 to 17 were also marked. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the defence. 6. The trial Court, after appreciating the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, found the accused guilty and punished him for life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. Hence this appeal. 7. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the trial Court erroneously convicted the appellant basing on the circumstantial evidence though no eyewitness or person, who witnessed the incident, was examined by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the appellant; that the trial Court ought not have believed the evidence of P. Ws.3 to 5, children of the appellant and deceased No.1, who are interested witnesses and whose testimony should not have been considered by it for convicting the appellant for the alleged offence; that there was a gap of 18 days in recording the alleged extra judicial confession of the appellant from the date of occurrence; that some culprits might have killed the deceased and the appellant was falsely implicated; that the appellant is nearing septuagenarian and a lenient view is to be taken and that lastly, to set aside the judgment under appeal. 8. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor supported the judgment under challenge and argued that the Sessions Court rightly convicted the appellant and awarded the sentence. 9. The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is - whether the trial Court was right in convicting the appellant and imposing the sentence? 10. Point:- This is a case of extra judicial confession, which was the foundation for the trial Court to record a finding that the appellant was guilty. Since there are no eyewitnesses or other circumstances, we have to examine only the extra judicial confession that had been brought on record. 11. In this context, it is borne out from the record that the alleged extra judicial confession made by the appellant was in two forms firstly, in the form of a statement reduced into writing by the Panchayat Secretary (P.W.11) on 13-4-2006 i.e., after about 18 days of the committal of the offence, secondly; in the form of deposition of P.W.3. It is the specific case of the prosecution that the appellant voluntarily came to P .W.11 and confessed that he killed the deceased and that the said statement was reduced into writing. It is the specific case of the prosecution that the appellant voluntarily came to P .W.11 and confessed that he killed the deceased and that the said statement was reduced into writing. The prosecution placed reliance on EX.P-8 in order to prove the said extra judicial confession, which was allegedly reduced into writing. 12. A perusal of EX.P-8 would only reveal that some excerpts have been recorded and a report has been furnished to the C.l. of Police, Jaggampet (P.W.14). Further, from the opening words of EX.P-8, it would only reveal that Ex.P-8wasonlya report submitted by P.W.11 to P.W.14. 13. Forready reference, we prefer to extract EX.P-8, which is thus: "Report submitted by Satyavolu Satyanarayana, Village Secretary, Subbayyammapeta to the Circle Inspector of Police, Jaggampeta, on the information given by Sirisala Mahalakshmi, about the murders that took place on 25-3-2006 in the makam shed situated in S.No.142 Sir, Today i.e., on 13-4-2006 after noon at 2 p.m., when I was attending to office work in Panchayat Office, our villager by name Sirisala Mahalakshmi came to me and informed that he and his wife Bhushanam are watching the fields of Tetala Dorayya Reddy, and residing in the makam hut, that about one year back his daughter Bhulakshmi left her husband and residing with them, that about 4 months back she delivered a female child, that recently govt., assigned site to him, that he informed his wife Bhushanam that he would construct a house in the site, that mother and daughter refused to give money or to sell gats and did not heed his words. He informed 'I got completed the hut with my chit amount and the loan amount received from Konkuduru Reddy. I have to pay coolly wages. About 20 days back I asked them to give money, both mother and daughter disputed with me and insulted me and pushed me back by treating me as useless fellow. On the same day night about 8 p.m., I went to the makam hut in the field and found my daughter and wife sleeping. Unable to control my anger, I picked up a knife from the eves of my hut and hacked my wife at first. Then my daughter came out and raised cries. Thinking that she would tell this incident to the villagers, I hacked her in front of the hut. Both died on the spot. The baby was sleeping. Unable to control my anger, I picked up a knife from the eves of my hut and hacked my wife at first. Then my daughter came out and raised cries. Thinking that she would tell this incident to the villagers, I hacked her in front of the hut. Both died on the spot. The baby was sleeping. Thinking that animals may come, I covered up the body and came out. While coming to the house, on the way I hurled the knife with which I hacked, into bamboo beedem of Yarrakalva. Later I came to the house, washed and banian, as there are blood stains on it and took bath. In the night I slept. At day dawn I went to the makam hut and found the baby well. Then I returned to the village and informed my children and villagers that some body has killed my wife and daughter. As the police are searching for me, and if I am traced, the police would beat me and so I came to you'. I am producing Sirisala Mahalakshmi before you with this report for taking necessary action." 14. From the above, it is abundantly clear that EX.P-8 is only a report made to the police by P. W .11, wherein certain excerpts of the confession of the appellant were mentioned. 15. Further, from the mediators' report, dated 13-4-2006, EX.P-9, which also contains an excerpt of confession part allegedly made by the appellant, it would further reveal that P .W.11 made the appellant surrender before the police and upon such surrender being made, P.W.14 arrested him on the same day. 16. From the above, it is further obvious that P.W.11 allegedly recorded the confessional statement of the appellant and went to P.W.14 along with the appellant, where he was made to surrender and got arrested. 17. The excerpts made in the report EX.P-8 cannot be treated, in our considered view, as confession, inasmuch as the same is not signed by the appellant, particularly when it is the specific case of the prosecution that the confessional statement, which was recorded by P .W.11 ,was reduced into writing and thumb impressions of the appellant as well as the mediators were also obtained. 18. 18. In this connection, it is further relevant to have a look at relevant portion of the evidence of P.W.14, who is the Investigating Officer, which is as under: "On 13-4-2006 at about 2.30 p.m., P.W.11 came to police station along with the accused and submitted a written report it is EX.P-8 (already marked). Then I secured presence of D.Thatarao in the presence of D.Thatarao and P.W.11 I questioned the accused. The accused admitted the offence. The confessional statement of accused was reduced into writing." (emphasis supplied by us) 19. When the said confessional statement of the appellant was reduced into writing, the question that is relevant is - as to whether the said confessional statement was reduced into writing by P.W.11 independently at his office before mediators or it was reduced into writing after the appellant was produced before P .W.14 and before his arrest, his statement was recorded. 20. In the earlier case - it amounts to an extra judicial confession, which can be based for conviction, subject to the satisfaction of other circumstances. In the later - any statement reduced into writing before the police is inadmissible in evidence and such admission cannot be treated as an extra judicial confession and not a valid confession in the eye of law. 21. Furthermore, if the said extra judicial confession was reduced into writing independently by P. W .11 at his office or at his residence or any other place other than the police station and in the absence of the police, such report that was allegedly reduced into writing ought to have been pressed into service to the Investigating Agency along with production of the appellant. But, to our surprise, no such extra judicial confession, which was allegedly reduced into writing byP.W.11, was brought on record. 22. It is only the report in EX.P-8 that is on record and that is the piece of evidence that was made basis to record an order of conviction. The procedure adopted and the reasoning accorded by the trial Court in this regard giving credence or according status of admissibility to that kind of piece of evidence cannot be sustained. 23. We reiterate that any confessional statement, particularly when it was reduced into writing shall be beyond all reasonable doubt in order to attach unquestionable sanctity to it for the purpose of conviction. 23. We reiterate that any confessional statement, particularly when it was reduced into writing shall be beyond all reasonable doubt in order to attach unquestionable sanctity to it for the purpose of conviction. Therefore, we propose to discard the evidence adduced by the prosecution in the shape of Ex.P-8 read with the evidence of P.Ws.11 and 14. 24. Now, we come to the aspect of oral evidence. It is P.W.3 who spoke about the confession of commission of offence made by the appellant. P.w.3 is the son of the appellant, who deposed that during the course of inquest, he was present and his statement was also recorded along with P.W.1, who gave an initial report to the police. He further deposed that during the course of inquest, it was felt by others that both the murders were committed by the appellant only. Then, he allegedly asked his father/appellant as to the veracity of the said opinion of the public, upon which, the appellant allegedly confessed that he committed the offence. 25. Therefore, when P.W.3 was present at the time of inquest and during the course of inquest only, his father, who is the appellant, confessed about the guilt, he ought to have informed the same to the police and also P.W.1, who gave the F.I.R. But, P.W.1, brother of deceased No.1, who gave the report, did not make any mention about the alleged confession of the appellant nor before P.W.3. 26. According to P.W.3, when he questioned in the first instance, his father informed that someone killed both the deceased, but, subsequently, when he questioned his father, he stated that he is the person actually who killed the deceased. For the first time P.W.3 deposed in the Court about the confession of appellant. 27. P.Ws.1 and 3 were examined during the course of the same inquest, in such an event, P .W.1 ought to have made a specific mention about the alleged confession made by the appellant before P.W.3. Nothing of that sort had happened. Therefore, any amount of doubt rather than credibility has to be attached to the evidence of P.W.3 as regards the alleged confession made by the appellant. 28. The end result is - the alleged confession made voluntarily by the appellant before P.W.11 was not on record. Nothing of that sort had happened. Therefore, any amount of doubt rather than credibility has to be attached to the evidence of P.W.3 as regards the alleged confession made by the appellant. 28. The end result is - the alleged confession made voluntarily by the appellant before P.W.11 was not on record. It is only EX.P-8, which is only the report of P.W.11 to the Investigating Agency (P. W.14) was treated as an admissible confession, on which, we have already expressed our opinion, as the same is totally inadmissible and contrary to law. 29. Therefore, for the reasons aforementioned, we are of the considered view that the prosecution had failed to establish the veracity of the extra judicial confession either in the form of EX.P-8 or in the form of deposition of P.W.3. The extra judicial confession, which is basically a weak piece of evidence, shall not suffer from any kind of infirmities like doubt, suspicion etc. Therefore, since the very case of the prosecution based on those two pieces of evidence on record, which were treated as extra judicial confessions, cannot be made as a foundation to record an order of conviction. Accordingly, the reasoning assigned by the trial Court is liable to be set aside. 30. In the result, the criminal appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 21-11-2006, in Sessions Case No.380 of 2006, passed by the VII Additional Sessions Judge, Kakinada against the appellant-accused is set aside and he is acquitted of the said charge. The appellant shall be released forthwith, if not required in connection with any other offence. The amount of fine, if any, paid by the appellant shall be refunded to him.