JUDGMENT : A.S. Naidu, J. - The judgment dated 23.2.1998 passed by learned Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Rayagada acquitting the accused persons of the charges under Sections 302/201/34 of I.P.C. in S.C. No. 4 of 1997 is assailed by the State in this appeal. 2. The Respondents faced trial for alleged commission of offences under Sections 302/201/506 read with 34 I.P.C. However, during trial the charges were altered to Section 302/201/34 I.P.C. 3. The prosecution case was set to motion on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged by Jagabandhu Saraka alleging that his brother Biswambar Saraka had informed him on 21.9.1995 at about 7.00 P.M. that on the said date at about 1.00 P.M. he heard certain unaccustomed sound from the house. Oncoming out he saw accused Madan Bidika standing in front of the house of his father. Madan warned Biswambar not to come near them. Thereafter P.W.3 heard certain groaning sound of his father and also sound of assault from inside the house. He left the place and went to sleep. On the next day morning he found drops of blood inside the room and his father was absent. His cousin brother Arjuna-P.W.4 advised him to wash away the blood stains to avoid foul smell. Accordingly he washed the house. It was further averred in the F.I.R. that on 23.9.1995 a meeting was convened in the village and in that meeting Kabiraj Behera, Adinarayan Senapati and Bhima Rao Bidika were present. The accused persons like Madan and Hari however did not attend the meeting. Accused Suba Rao appeared and disclosed that he along with Madan and Hari killed Karsana, the father of the informant and threw away the dead body. The further stated that as Karshan was practicing witchcraft and sorcery, they killed him. 4. On receipt of the F.I.R. lodged, the local police commenced investigation, arrested accused Suba Rao and Madan, brought them to the village in police custody and in consonance with their disclosure police searched the bushes, shrubs, traced out the trunk, the severed head of the deceased Karshan, the weapon of offence (axe) was also recovered from a tree, inquest was conducted over the dead body and the same was sent for postmortem examination. The weapon of Crime and other materials were seized so also blood stained soil. The weapon of Crime and other materials were seized so also blood stained soil. After completing the investigation charge sheet was submitted in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Rayagada in G.R. Case No. 333 of 1995. On perusal of the police records and on being satisfied that a prima facie case was made out learned S.D.J.M. took cognizance of the offences and committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial. The plea of the defence was of complete denial. 5. In order to establish its case the prosecution got ten witnesses examined. Out of them P.W.1 was a villager of deceased Karshana. He was neither an occurrence witness nor he had seen the dead body. P.W.2 was Anr. villager who did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile. P.W.3 was the son of the deceased and did not support the prosecution case. P.W.4 was the cousin brother of the informant-P.W.3. He had also not supported the prosecution case. P.W.6 was the seizure witness but then in Court he stated that he had signed on a piece of a paper on being requested by the police. P.Ws.1 to 5 were cross-examined by the prosecution on being declared hostile. Their evidence is of no help to the prosecution. Similarly P.Ws.6 and 7 also did not support the prosecution case. P.W.8 was the doctor who conducted the postmortem. 6. Learned Addl.Sessions Judge after vivid discussion of the evidence arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution had totally failed to establish the guilty of the accused persons and acquitted them of all the charges u/s 235 of Code of Criminal Procedure 7. Learned Addl.Government Advocate assails the judgment and order of acquittal mainly on the ground that learned Addl. Sessions Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence and the conclusions arrived at suffers from non-consideration of vital facts. According to learned Addl.Government Advocate the accused persons having confessed about their guilt in the meeting and as in consonance with their statement made before the police the dead body of Karshana as well as the weapon of offence were seized, the Court below should have convicted them. 8. All these submissions are strongly repudiated by learned Counsel appearing for Respondents. According to him learned Addl.Sessions Judge has discussed the evidence in extenso and the conclusions arrived at are just and proper. 8. All these submissions are strongly repudiated by learned Counsel appearing for Respondents. According to him learned Addl.Sessions Judge has discussed the evidence in extenso and the conclusions arrived at are just and proper. It is stated that the prosecution having failed to produce any evidence to connect the accused persons with the alleged crime, learned Addl.Sessions Judge has rightly acquitted them. 9. Heard learned Counsel for the parties at length. Perused the evidence meticulously. The prosecution mainly relied upon the confessional statement said to have been made by the accused persons in the meeting, so also before the police and the fact of seizure of the dead body and weapon of offence on the basis of such confession. An extra judicial confession if voluntary and true can be relied upon by the Court subject to other condition that the Court is satisfied that the same was made in a fit state of mind without being coerced, influenced or biassed by any outside sources. A confession is required to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt like any other fact. The value of the evidence so far as the confession is concerned, depends upon the veracity of truthfulness of the witness before whom the same said to have been made. Thus the evidentiary value of the confession depends on the reliability of the witnesses before whom the same was made. Considering the confession said to have been made by the accused persons in the case at hand, it appears that though according to prosecution case confession was made in a village meeting, which was attended by several independent witnesses, not a single witness has been examined to establish the fact. To add to it the accused have taken the stand that they had not made any such statement. 10. So far as recovery of the dead body and the weapon of offence are concerned admittedly such statement was made before the police. No doubt in consonance with Section 27 of the Evidence Act the part of the confession leading to recovery can be accepted in evidence but then simply recovery of the dead body or weapon of offence will not lead to a presumption that a person who has led to such recovery is the assailant. No doubt in consonance with Section 27 of the Evidence Act the part of the confession leading to recovery can be accepted in evidence but then simply recovery of the dead body or weapon of offence will not lead to a presumption that a person who has led to such recovery is the assailant. Learned Addl.Sessions Judge has delved into the question of law and facts very elaborately and has arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has totally failed to establish involvement of the accused persons with the alleged offence. As stated earlier almost all the witnesses have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution case. That apart P.W.9 who had lodged the F.I.R. was not an eye witness, as such on the basis of his statement no conviction can be made. The incident in question took place in the year 1995. Fourteen years have passed in the meanwhile. Keeping in view the principles to be adopted by this Court while dealing with an order of acquittal passed eleven years back and the fact that no infirmity in the judgment could be pointed out by the learned Addl.Government Advocate and as we find no perversity in the conclusions arrived at, we are declined to interfere with the order of acquittal. The Government Appeal accordingly stands dismissed. B.N. Mahapatra, J. 11. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed