JUDGMENT By Court: The sole appellant Maisa Paharaia @ Mahisa Paharia having been convicted for an offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for committing murder of his wife Sundri Paharin was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The case of the prosecution is that the informant Vijay Marandi (P.W.3) while was grazing cattle on 26.8.1989, saw a dead body of a female in the field, situated at village Samadhani. Thereafter he informed about it to one Bamna Paharia (P.W.2), a village Pradhan of village-Patwara, who came to the place of occurrence and identified the dead body as that of Sundri Paharin, wife of the appellant. Thereupon, he disclosed to the informant that on the previous night, he had seen both the husband (appellant ) and the wife (deceased) at Magdih Hatia where they had consumed liquor and by that time darkness had started setting in and, therefore, he (Bamna Paharia) requested them to come along with him to stay in his house in the night but the appellant did not accept his proposal by saying that he will be going to his in-laws’ place but in the morning when he saw the dead body of Sundri Paharin, he made enquiry from the appellant, who disclosed that the deceased had consumed liquor previous night in the Hut with unknown persons and, therefore, he has committed her murder by pressing her neck through his leg. Thereafter, Vijay Marandi (P.W.3) gave his Fardbeyan (Ext.2) to the Officer-in-Charge of Littipara Police Station on 26.8.1989 at about 5.30 P.M, upon which the case was registered. One R.K.Ram (P.W.6), Investigating Officer having taken up the investigation of the case, came to the place of occurrence where he made inquest on the dead body and prepared an inquest report (Ext.3) and sent the dead body for post mortem examination, which was conducted by Dr. Rajiv Kumar Verma (not examined). However, post mortem report (Ext.4) has been proved by one formal witness which shows that Doctor, who conducted the post mortem examination, found the following injuries. 1.Fracture of the left 4th and 5th ribs in the mid-clavicular line in front of the chest. th 2.Fracture of the right 5th, 6th and ribs in front on opening the chest cavity dark colour fluid seen in the cavity. Both the lungs were found punctured. Heart punctured. Liver punctured. 1.Fracture of the left 4th and 5th ribs in the mid-clavicular line in front of the chest. th 2.Fracture of the right 5th, 6th and ribs in front on opening the chest cavity dark colour fluid seen in the cavity. Both the lungs were found punctured. Heart punctured. Liver punctured. 3.Fracture of the Thyroid cartilage and buried into the trachea. According to Doctor, death occurred due to injuries nos.1, 2 and 3 leading to massive Intra thoracis haemorrhage and respiratory arrest leading to shock. After completion of the investigation, police submitted charge sheet against the appellant whereupon cognizance of the offence was taken and in due course, when the case was committed to the court of sessions, charge was framed to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in order to bring the charge home did examine altogether 8 witnesses. Of them, Bamna Paharia (P.W.2) has disclosed about the confession being made by the appellant before him of committing murder of his wife Sundri Paharin. Vijay Marandi (P.W.3) is the informant, who on seeing the dead body lying in the field informed it to Bamna Paharia (P.W.2), who came to the place of occurrence and identified the dead body as that of wife of the appellant. The trial court on finding the extra judicial confession made by the appellant admitting his guilt before the Bamna Paharia (P.W.2) to be true getting corroboration substantially from the post mortem examination report (Ext.4) recorded the order of conviction and sentence as aforesaid. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant while making statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has retracted from the alleged extra judicial confession and in that view of the matter, the trial court should not have placed its reliance on the said retracted extra judicial confession without there being any corroboration and that post mortem report (Ext.4) proved by a formal witness (an Advocate’s clerk) cannot be taken into account either for corroboration or for other purposes in absence of examination of the Doctor as it is only the Doctor, who conducted post mortem examination, can say about the injury being sufficient or not to cause death and hence, the trial court committed an error in using the post mortem report as corroborative piece of evidence for holding the appellant guilty. Heard learned counsel appearing for the State also. Having heard leaned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the record, we do find that it is the case of the prosecution that when the informant Vijay Marandi (P.W.3) in course of grazing cattle in the field of Hillo Marandi situated at village Samadhani when found a dead body lying, he informed about it to Bamna Paharia (P.W.2). who came at the place of occurrence and identified the dead body as that of the wife of the appellant and then, as per the evidence of Vijay Marandi (P.W.3), he informed it to the police station where his Fardbeyan was recorded. It would be significant to note that this witness has never testified that Bamna Paharia (P.W.2) on identifying the dead body did approach the appellant and on being asked about the death, confessed before him about his guilt of committing murder of his wife. This aspect of the matter, certainly creates doubt over the truthfulness of the testimony of Bamna Paharia (P.W.2), who in his evidence speaks about the confession being made by the appellant of committing murder of his wife. Under this situation, before placing reliance the said testimony of Bamna Paharia (P.W.2) needs to be scrutinized cautiously. It be stated that according to P.W.2, Bamna Paharia, he had seen this appellant and his wife (deceased) in the previous evening at the village market and asked both of them to come along with him to stay in his house as darkness was setting in but he refused to go along with him on the plea that he will be going to his in-law’s place. This witness testifies further that on finding the dead body, when he asked from this appellant, he confessed that she was done to death as she had consumed liquor with some unknown persons. But this piece of evidence is quite susceptible to doubt as according to P.W.2, when he, on finding this appellant in inebriated condition, asked the appellant to come along with him, the appellant never seems to have shown any expression of his anger on account of taking liquor by his wife in company with unknown persons, rather the appellant, on being asked by P.W.2 simply said that he will be going to his in-law’s place. That being the situation, it would not be safe to place reliance on the extra judicial confession. Moreover, post mortem report (Ext.4) which has been proved by a formal witness cannot be taken into account for the purpose of ascertaining the cause of death in absence of examination of the Doctor, who had held post mortem examination. In this respect, we may refer to a decision rendered in a case of Munna Kumar vs. State of Bihar [(2005) 12 SCC 209]. Under this situation, post mortem report cannot be used for lending support as corroborative piece of evidence to the ocular evidence or any other circumstantial evidence. In this view of the matter, the trial court certainly seems to have committed illegality in recording the order of conviction and sentence. Accordingly, it is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against him and is discharged from the liability of the bail bonds. In the result, this appeal is allowed.