Judgment Biswanath Somadder, J. This appeal arises out of a judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 21st June, 2001, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 10th Court, Alipore, South 24-Parganas, in sessions trial, being S.T. No. 3 (6) 2000, under sections 326/307 of the Indian Penal Code, arising out of Joynagar P.S. Case No. 123 dated 23.10.1996, under sections 326/307, whereby and whereupon the appellant, Swapan kumar Naskar @ Swapan Naskar (for short, hereinafter referred to as the appellant), was convicted under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- (rupees one thousand), in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months. 2. At the outset, it is made clear that when the appeal was taken up for final hearing the appellant had already served his term in jail and had been released. 3. The facts of the instant case, in brief, are as follows: – On 22nd October, 1996, on the day of Bijoya Dashami, the appellant offered sweets to his neighbors namely, Pritimay Mondal, Nirmal Mondal, Sudhir Sardar and Gopal Sardar. After eating such sweets they fell ill and were taken to a local doctor named, Bhabendra Nath Mistry, who being incapable to treat them referred them to Padyerhut Hospital. From Padyerhut Hospital they were taken to Medical College and Hospital at Kolkata where they were admitted and were given a stomach wash. They were kept in hospital for four to five days. During this period, a petition of complaint was made by them which was registered as Joynagar P.S. Case No.123 dated 23rd October, 1996 under sections 326/307 of the Indian Penal Code and a case was started against the appellant. Along with the petition of complaint they also filed three reports of the Medical College and Hospital and one confessional statement made by the appellant. The appellant was handed over to the police at the police station simultaneously the complaint was lodged. Some names of witnesses were also in the petition of complaint. In the police station the appellant had confessed that he had offered sweets mixed with mercury to all four of the complainants. The appellant was handed over to the police at the police station simultaneously the complaint was lodged. Some names of witnesses were also in the petition of complaint. In the police station the appellant had confessed that he had offered sweets mixed with mercury to all four of the complainants. A formal F.I.R. was drawn up and a sub-inspector of police was entrusted with the investigation of the case and upon completion of investigation he submitted charge-sheet against the appellant under sections 326/307 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon taking cognizance, the case record was committed to the Court of Sessions and thereafter upon cognizance of the commitment, the case record was transferred to the 10th Court of the Additional Sessions Judge at Alipore, South 24-Parganas (for short, hereinafter referred to as the learned trial Court) for disposal. The charges under sections 326/307 of the Indian Penal Code were accordingly framed, read over and explained to the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The trial thereafter commenced. The appellant took up a plea of innocence. The point for consideration before the learned trial Court was whether the prosecution was able to bring home the charges against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. During the course of trial to substantiate the charges the prosecution examined as many as fifteen witnesses (Prosecution Witnesses/P.W.s). 4. P.W.1 (defacto complainant namely, Sudhangsu Sekhar Gayen), P.W.2 (Priya Ranjan Mondal) and P.W.3 (Pritish Mondal) are those witnesses whose names transpired as witnesses in the petition of complaint. P.W.11 was Dr. Bhabendra Nath Mistry to whom all the four victims (P.W.4 to P.W.7) were first produced for treatment. P.W.8 (Dr. Sourindra Mohan Dev) was the relevant doctor, who was attached to Padyerhut P.H.C. at the relevant point of time. According to his evidence, no such record was available in the hospital showing any treatment on 22.10.1996. P.W.9 (Dr. Gour Das Mondal), posted at the Padyerhut P.H.C. at the time of trial, deposed that there was no record in the Hospital regarding the treatment of any case involving administration of sweet mixed with mercury in the year 1996. P.W. 10 (sub-inspector of police namely, Nikhil Ranjan Chakraborty) received the written complaint and as per instruction of Officer-in-Charge of Joynagar P.S. drew the formal F.I.R. and started police station case no. 123 dated 23rd October, 1996 under sections 326/307 of the Indian Penal Code. P.W. 10 (sub-inspector of police namely, Nikhil Ranjan Chakraborty) received the written complaint and as per instruction of Officer-in-Charge of Joynagar P.S. drew the formal F.I.R. and started police station case no. 123 dated 23rd October, 1996 under sections 326/307 of the Indian Penal Code. According to his evidence, the petition of complaint was accompanied by a declaration made by the appellant of his having had administered sweets mixed with mercury to P.W.4 and P.W.5. The investigating officer (P.W.15), who investigated the case and submitted charge-sheet, was also examined. Other than him, employees of the Medical College and Hospital including doctors were examined at length. The observation of the learned trial Court, upon analysis of the evidences, inter alia, are as follows: - There was stomach wash done and it was opined as unknown poisoning. Contents of the stomach wash though sent to the ward master for examination, the chemical report was not forthcoming. The discharge certificate was marked as secondary evidence wherein it was observed as mercury poisoning. The learned trial Court has took into consideration the immediate disclosure by the appellant to the victims and others in the vicinity that he had offered sweets mixed with mercury. However, the learned trial Court has also gone on to observe that there was no denying that chemical examination report could have established with greater precision and certitude the case of administering of mercury with sweets. The evidences of P.W. 14, P.W. 11 and above all, all the victims, including the witnesses whose presence at the scene of occurrence remained undisputed, i.e., P.W.2 and P.W.3, could not be discarded altogether from the consideration of substratum of the prosecution case. 5. The learned trial Court went on to hold that “we have found that accused Swapan Naskar also gave a declaration before the victims and P.W.2 and 3 and also the doctors that he offered sweets mixed with mercury to those persons”. The learned trial Court took into consideration such extra judicial confession given by the appellant before the victims and others on the close heel of falling ill of the victims soon thereafter. Significantly, the learned trial Court has also observed in paragraph no. The learned trial Court took into consideration such extra judicial confession given by the appellant before the victims and others on the close heel of falling ill of the victims soon thereafter. Significantly, the learned trial Court has also observed in paragraph no. 14 of its judgment that the administration of mercury poison with sweets and its swallowing up by the victims have not caused their deaths, in which case the report of viscera contents could have been important to ascertain if any such death was due to any cause other than poisoning. Learned trial Court took into note that all the victims survived and no hurt or injuries were reported in the injury reports. Another aspect of the case which was taken into consideration by the learned trial Court was that some amount of enmity existed between two of the victims (P.W.4 and P.W.5) and the appellant. It went on to observe that the defence has also sought to bring on record such enmity in cross-examination, which was also taken into consideration by the learned trial Court. The declaration of the appellant, which the learned trial Court relied upon, also spoke about such enmity. According to learned trial Court, however, that enmity was the motive of the appellant behind the act. 6. Considering the above aspects of the matter, the learned trial Court came to a finding that the prosecution had brought home the charge under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant and charge under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code was rendered fit to be withdrawn. The appellant was, therefore, found guilty on the charge of section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and was convicted and later on sentenced to undergo a rigorous imprisonment for five years and also to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand) in default, rigorous imprisonment for two months. 7. The appellant has assailed the impugned judgment and order mainly on two grounds. According to the appellant, the learned trial Court had relied on the extra judicial confession and convicted him in the absence of any independent corroborating evidence. The other ground being the absence of any forensic/chemical test to ascertain the actual presence of mercury in the sweets, which could have been easily done since a stomach wash of the victims was carried out in the Medical College itself. 8. The other ground being the absence of any forensic/chemical test to ascertain the actual presence of mercury in the sweets, which could have been easily done since a stomach wash of the victims was carried out in the Medical College itself. 8. In support of his case, the appellant has relied on the following judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court with regard to credibility of extra judicial confession, which are as follows: - 1) AIR 1982 SC 1595 (Heramba Brahma & Anr. vs. State of Assam 2) AIR 1994 SC 1594 (Sakharam Shankar Bansode vs. State of Maharashtra). 3) AIR 1997 SC 3247 (Shib Singh vs. State of Haryana 9. It appears that the extra judicial confession made by the appellant (Exhibit-2) has been relied on heavily by the learned trial Court in the impugned judgment. The question is, whether such extra judicial confession alone, in the absence of any corroborating evidence, can lead to an order of conviction. However, before this issue is substantially dealt with, another aspect of the case assumes significance. According to the learned trial Court, upon analysis of evidence, it was proved that the appellant had administered poison, i.e., mercury mixed in sweets and as such, the learned trial Court found that the prosecution had brought home the charge under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant. In the impugned judgment, the learned trial Court took note of the fact that when the victims were brought to the Medical College and Hospital, a stomach wash was given to prosecution witness nos. 4, 5 and 6. The learned trial Court also took note of the fact that the contents of the stomach wash were sent for examination to the Ward Master, who had opined it to be a case of unknown poisoning in which prognosis was uncertain. However, the learned trial Court came to a positive conclusion of mercury poisoning even though a chemical test to that effect was not forthcoming, merely by relying on the evidence on two doctors namely, P.W. 14 and P.W.11, and the evidence of the victims including the witnesses who were present at the scene of occurrence. The learned trial Court, above all that, took into consideration the extra judicial confession made by the appellant before P.W.2 and P.W.3 and also before the doctors in order to come to a conclusion of the appellant being guilty. The learned trial Court, above all that, took into consideration the extra judicial confession made by the appellant before P.W.2 and P.W.3 and also before the doctors in order to come to a conclusion of the appellant being guilty. However, significantly, while coming to such conclusion, the learned trial Court did not rely on any forensic evidence – in the form of a chemical test – which would have scientifically and authentically proved the presence of mercury in the victim’s stomach, beyond any reasonable doubt. 10. In Heramba Brahma (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held to the effect that the acceptance of evidence on extra-judicial confession is not possible without examining the credentials of the prosecution witnesses before whom such extra-judicial confession was made, without ascertaining the words used; without referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Rahim Beg vs. State of U.P. (reported in (1972) 3 SCC 759 ), wherein it was succinctly stated that extra-judicial confession to afford a piece of reliable evidence must pass the test of reproduction of exact words, the reason or motive for confession and person selected in whom confidence is reposed. 11. In Sakharam Shankar Bansode (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that it is well settled now that a retracted extra-judicial confession, though a piece of evidence on which reliance can be placed, the same has to be corroborated by independent evidence. 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Sahib Singh (supra), has referred to its earlier judgments and has observed in paragraph 42, inter alia, that a “confession” has to be affirmatively proved to be free and voluntary. It further held that before a conviction can be based on “confession”, it has to be shown that it was truthful. 13. In the facts of the instant case it is noticed that such corroboration of evidence has been made by the learned trial Court, not by means of independent evidence, but by merely relying upon the evidence of the victims and, notably, in the absence of any chemical test, which would have proved the charge of mercury poisoning against the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt, independent of his extra judicial confession. The learned trial Court, even while taking into consideration that a stomach wash was given to prosecution witnesses no. The learned trial Court, even while taking into consideration that a stomach wash was given to prosecution witnesses no. 4, 5 and 6, failed to attach any significance to the material fact that there was no chemical report forthcoming, even though the contents of such stomach wash was sent to the Ward Master for that very purpose. In order to come to a conclusive finding for the purpose of holding an accused guilty for conviction under the relevant provision of the Indian Penal Code, it is imperative on the part of a trial Court to analyze the evidence presented before it in such a manner which would place the case of the prosecution against an accused as proved beyond any reasonable doubt. There is not even an iota of doubt that in the facts of the instant case, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt, for reasons stated above. In such circumstances, the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court is liable to be set aside and is set aside and the appeal stands allowed accordingly.