JUDGMENT PRADIP MOHANTY, J. This jail criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.09.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rayagada in Sessions Case No. 6 of 2002/Sessions Case No. 364 of 2001 convicting the appellant for commission of offence under Section 302, IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 20.09.2001 around 2 P.M. the accused came to the house of the deceased and requested him to accompany him to village Khairaguda to get dues from the liquor vendor. Accused was distilling liquor and the deceased was working under him as casual labourer and transporting liquor to the liquor Bhati. Prior to this incident on 16.9.2001 the younger brother of accused, namely, Raja Rao Mellaka had expired and the accused suspected the deceased to have practiced sorcery on his brother. At village Khairaguda accused consumed liquor in the house of liquor vendor Laxman Behera and thereafter accused and the deceased while returning home on the way in an isolated place accused suddenly pushed the deceased, as a result of which he fell down hitting against the ridge of the road. Thereafter, accused gave successive kicks and blows on the head of the deceased and dragged him to the non-metal portion of the road and twisted his neck as a result of which the deceased died at the spot. At this juncture, Kereda & K. Singhpur bound private bus known as “Vijayalaxmi Bus" passing through the road, arrived there and seeing the incident, the bus stopped. The bus staff and the passengers also got down from the bus and being confronted the accused disclosed before them to have killed the deceased as he was responsible for death of his younger brother Raja Rao Mellaka. Thereafter, the bus proceed to the village Pitamahal, where some passengers informed the fact to the informant, who was the husband of the Sarpanch at Patamahal Grama Panchayat. The informant made a telephonic call to Rayagada Hospital for sending the Ambulance and proceeded to village kumariguda in his motorcycle and in between Khairaguda and Jagannathpur found the deceased lying dead by the side of the road and blood coming out through his mouth. The informant made a telephonic call to Rayagada Hospital for sending the Ambulance and proceeded to village kumariguda in his motorcycle and in between Khairaguda and Jagannathpur found the deceased lying dead by the side of the road and blood coming out through his mouth. The informant found the accused near the spot and being asked he confessed to have killed the deceased as he was responsible for the untimely death of his younger brother. The informant immediately came to Rayagada Police Station and lodged a report. The OIC, Rayagada Police Station after registering a case directed S.I. of Seskhal Out-post to take up investigation. The I.O. visited the spot, conducted inquest, sent the dead body for post-mortem examination, seized the wearing apparels of the deceased and sent the same for chemical examination and after completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet against the accused. 3. The plea of the appellant is complete denial of the prosecution case. 4. The prosecution, in order to p-rove the charge, examined as many as 11 witnesses including the I.O. and the doctor and exhibited 11 documents. Defence examined none. 5. The learned Additional Sessions Judge on conclusion of the trial convicted the accused under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life basing upon the last seen theory and the extra judicial confession made by the accused before P.W.1. 6. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the appellant assails the impugned judgment on the following grounds: (i) The evidence of P.W.1 with regard to extra judicial confession is not reliable and trustworthy in view of his statement in the examination-in-chief that on being asked by him the accused told that as the deceased had killed his brother by practicing witchcraft he kil1ed the deceased and further in view of his admission in cross-examination that three to four days prior to the date of occurrence there was a quarrel between his wife and the appellant in connection with the construction of Badakhal village road and that the passengers of the bus who came to inform him about the assault did not tell the name of either the victim or the assailant and that when he saw the appellant near the spot where the dead body was lying he was in a drunken state. (ii) P.W.10, the wife of the deceased, is the only witness to the last seen theory. (ii) P.W.10, the wife of the deceased, is the only witness to the last seen theory. But, in view of her admission In cross-examination that she had not disclosed before anybody that on being called by the appellant the deceased proceeded with him to village Khariaguda, and that when the appellant called her husband at that time she was working in her backyard, no reliance can be placed on such last seen theory. 7. Mr. Sk. Zafuralla, learned Additional Standing Counsel, on the other hand, contends that the evidence of P.W.1 with regard to extra judicial confession is very clear, cogent and trust-worthy. There is nothing on record to show that he had animosity with the appellant. He being a responsible person his evidence cannot be thrown out of consideration on flimsy grounds. P.W.10 is the widow of the deceased who specifically stated that the appellant called her husband and both of them went together at 2 P.M. Within three hours of departure of the deceased with the accused, the deceased was found dead by the side of the road. Therefore, there is no material before this Court to interfere with the impugned judgment. 8. Keeping the above rival submissions in view, this Court carefully perused the L.C.R. and went through the oral and documentary evidence available therein. P.W.1 is the informant of this case. He deposed that on getting information about the death of the deceased from the passengers of 'Vijayalaxmi' bus plying from Kerada to Rayagada he proceeded to the spot and found the deceased lying by the side of the road and blood was oozing out of his mouth. At some distance he found the appellant standing. On being asked the appellant told him that as the deceased had killed his brother by practicing witchcraft he killed the deceased. Then he reported the matter at the police station. He proved the FIR marked as Ext. 1 and his signature as Ext. 1/1. In cross-examination he admitted that the passengers of the bus did not tell him the name of either the victim or the assailant. These passengers did not disclose their identities to him. They told him that while they were travelling in the bus, they saw the assault. The appellant was in a drunken state when he saw him near the spot where dead body of the deceased was lying. These passengers did not disclose their identities to him. They told him that while they were travelling in the bus, they saw the assault. The appellant was in a drunken state when he saw him near the spot where dead body of the deceased was lying. He further admitted that three to four days prior to the date of occurrence there was a quarrel between his wife and the appellant in connection with the construction of Badakhal village road. P.W.2 is a witness to the inquest and a co-villager. P.W.3 has not supported the prosecution case. P.W.4, who was working as a Checker in 'Vijayalaxmi' bus, has also not supported the prosecution case. In cross-examination he has stated that the passengers who boarded the bus at Khairaguda stoppage did not tell them anything about any incident. P.W.5 is a police constable who guarded the dead body of the deceased. P. W.6 is the doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body and found the following external injuries: "(1) Swelling of 3" diameter over right temporal region. (2) Lacerated wound of size ½ x ¼ " x 1/8" present at middle of a swelling situated over temporal region. (3) Abrasion with swelling over maxillary region of 3" diameter & swelling was of 2" diameter. (4) An abrasion of size ½ x ½ present inside the mucus membrane of the oral cavity through which blood was oozing out. (5) There was fracture of right maxillary bone. (6) Pigmented irregular patches over the area of size 3" x 2" on the right side of the neck. (7) Three irregular pigmented patches of size 1" x ½ each on the left side of the neck. On dissection, he found the following injuries. (1) Contusion of deep tissue of scalp with hemorrhagic spot on the right side of the scalp. (2) Bluish pink contusion was situated from left cheek to upper part of the left side of the neck covering an area of 4" in diameter. (3) There was subdural haemorrhage over the right temporal and parietal regions of scalp and brain. (4) Spinal cord was contused below the brain-stem of size 1" diameter. (5) There is crack fracture of temporal bone on the left side with crack fracture of the base of the skull. (6) There was fracture of maxillary bone of the right side. (3) There was subdural haemorrhage over the right temporal and parietal regions of scalp and brain. (4) Spinal cord was contused below the brain-stem of size 1" diameter. (5) There is crack fracture of temporal bone on the left side with crack fracture of the base of the skull. (6) There was fracture of maxillary bone of the right side. He opined that the death of the deceased was due to head injury. The injuries were ante mortem in nature. The time of death was since 48 hours prior to the post mortem examination. He further opined that injury Nos. (1) to (5) are possible by dealing of kicks and fist blows. All the six injuries are possible by fall on the edge of the pitch road. He proved the post mortem report marked as Ext. 4 and opinion report marked as Ext. 5. In cross-examination he admitted that external injuries are possible by fall. P.Ws. 7 & 8, who are respectively the driver and the conductor of 'Vijayalaxmi' bus, have not supported the prosecution case and have turned hostile. P.W.9 is a witness to the seizure one bloodstained shirt under Ext. 6. He proved his signature as Ext. 6/1. In cross-examination he stated that at the time of seizure the accused was not present. He also stated that he got information about the death of the deceased from police. P.W.10 is the widow of the deceased. She specifically stated in her examination-in-chief that on the day of incident around 2 P.M. the appellant came to their house and called her husband. Her husband told that he was proceeding to Khairaguda to get the dues of the accused from the liquor vendor. Both the accused and the deceased proceeded to Khairaguda from her house. The accused and the deceased did not return home. On the very night Sesikhal Police came to her house and informed that her husband lying dead near village Khairaguda under a Nim tree by the side of the road. In cross-examination she stated that her husband had good terms with the accused. Two to three days prior to the incident, brother of the accused had died. After death of his brother, the accused, who is a habitual drunkard, was moving in the village being drunk. She had not disclosed before anybody regarding accused calling her husband and her husband proceeding with him to village Khariaguda. Two to three days prior to the incident, brother of the accused had died. After death of his brother, the accused, who is a habitual drunkard, was moving in the village being drunk. She had not disclosed before anybody regarding accused calling her husband and her husband proceeding with him to village Khariaguda. When the accused called her husband at that time she was working in her backyard. P.W.11 is the I.O. of this case. He stated that on the direction of I.I.C., Rayagada Police Station he took up investigation, examined the informant, visited the spot, seized the wearing apparels of the accused, conducted inquest over the dead body and sent the dead body for postmortem examination. He arrested the accused on 21.09.2001 and forwarded him to the Court. He also seized the wearing apparels of the deceased. In cross-examination he admitted that on arrival he found the accused detained by the informant (P.W.1) in his house. 9. In the instant case, there is no direct evidence to implicate the appellant in the crime. The prosecution in order to bring home the charge against the appellant has heavily relied upon the extrajudicial confession said to have been made by the accused before P.W.1 and the last seen theory introduced by P.W.10. In Ram Singh v. State of Utter Pradesh, AIR 1967 SC 152 , it has been ruled by the Apex Court that extra judicial confessions are not usually considered with favour but that does not mean that such a confession coming from a person who has no reason to state falsely and to whom it is made in circumstances which tend to support his statement, should not be believed. Similar question again came up for consideration before the apex Court in Baldev Raj v. State of Haryana, AIR 1991 SC 37 and their Lordships held that when the Court believes the witness before whom the confession is made and it is satisfied that the confession was voluntary, conviction can be founded on such evidence. With this touchstone this Court examined the evidence of P.W.1. He stated that hearing about the incident from the passengers of 'Vijayalaxmi' bus he made a telephonic call to Rayagada hospital for sending the Ambulance and proceeded to the spot, since his wife was the Sarpanch of that Panchayat. With this touchstone this Court examined the evidence of P.W.1. He stated that hearing about the incident from the passengers of 'Vijayalaxmi' bus he made a telephonic call to Rayagada hospital for sending the Ambulance and proceeded to the spot, since his wife was the Sarpanch of that Panchayat. Reaching at the spot he found the dead body of the deceased lying there and the accused was standing at some distance. On being asked by him, the accused disclosed that as the deceased had killed his brother by practicing witchcraft he killed him. In cross-examination he admitted that the passengers of 'Vijayalaxmi' bus did not tell him the names of either the victim or the assailant. If that is so, then how P.W.1 could know the identity of the accused and challenged him as to why he killed the deceased, particularly when he was standing at some distance from the spot. In cross-examination he also admitted that three to four days prior to the date of incident there was a quarrel between his wife and the accused in connection with the construction of Badakhal village road. This shows that there was animosity between P.W.1 and the accused. He also admitted that the accused was in a drunken state of mind when he saw him near the spot. This being the evidence of P.W.1. it is unsafe to rely upon his evidence that the accused had confessed his guilt before him, particularly when his evidence is not corroborated by any other witness, As regards last seen theory the prosecution banks upon the evidence of P,W.10, the widow of the deceased. As noted above, this P.W.10 admitted in cross-examination that she did not disclose before anybody that on being called by the accused her husband proceeded with him to village Khariaguda and that when the accused called her husband at that time she was working in her backyard. In face of this admission of PW.10, it is difficult to believe that the appellant and the deceased were last seen together by her. Be that as it may, the apex Court in Inderjit Singh and another v. State of Punjab, AIR 1991 SC 1674 has held that the sole circumstance that deceased was last seen in company of accused is not sufficient to convict the accused. 10. Be that as it may, the apex Court in Inderjit Singh and another v. State of Punjab, AIR 1991 SC 1674 has held that the sole circumstance that deceased was last seen in company of accused is not sufficient to convict the accused. 10. Law is well settled that in a case of circumstantial evidence, there should be no missing link in the chain of circumstances. Conviction should not be made if there is any scope for entertaining a reasonable doubt about innocence of the accused. For all the above reasons, this Court arrives at a conclusion that the circumstances have not been proved fully and conclusively by the prosecution and all the links in the chain have not been established beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, it is difficult to sustain the conviction of the appellant. 11. In view of the discussions made above, the JCRLA is allowed and the judgment dated 12.09.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rayagada in Sessions Case No. 6 of 2002 convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life is set aside. The appellant Raju Mellaka be set at liberty forthwith unless his detention is required otherwise. B. K. MISRA, J. I agree. JCRLA allowed.