JUDGMENT Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. The appellant/accused- Ashok Dewangan was tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatapara, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh in Sessions Trial No. 10/2008 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and after full-fledged trial, convicted for said offence vide judgment dated 13.01.2009 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and was also imposed a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, the appellant has to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the instant appeal are summarized as under:- (2.1) On 8.7.2008, at about 7.30 pm Manrakhan Dewangan (PW-1) lodged a written complaint (Ex.P/1) in the Police Station-Bhatapara stating that his daughter-Yogita Dewangan alias Rani, aged about 20 years was married to Ashok Dewangan, son of Ganesh Ram Dewangan, aged about 29 years, one year prior to the date of incident and soon after the marriage Ashok Dewangan started harassing his daughter doubting her character and in sequence it was further stated that his daughter was carrying pregnancy and on being informed by the appellant's father - Ganesh Ram Dewangan, he came to daughter's house at Bhatapara where he saw his daughter lying dead on the bed, having swelling in her neck. It was informed to him by appellant's father Ganesh Ram Dewangan that his daughter has been murdered by appellant (her husband) by strangulation. (2.2) On the basis of aforesaid written report, B.S. Rathore, (PW7) Inspector and Investigating Officer, Police Station Bhatapara registered First Information Report (Ex.P/2) on 8.7.2008 at 7.30 p.m. and thereafter, the wheels of investigation started running. Investigating Officer (PW-7) gave notice to seven panchas vide Ex.P-3 and the Naksha panchayat-nama (Ex.P-4) was prepared in presence of panchas. The dead body was shown to panchas namely deceased's father Manrakhan Dewangan (PW-1), Ganesh Ram (PW-8) and Ram Kishan (PW-4). Opinion of Panch as were obtained in which they have noticed swelling on the neck of the deceased and suggested for the post mortem of deceased Smt. Yogita Dewangan. According to them, death might have been caused by strangulation. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer (PW-7) sent the dead body of the deceased for post mortem on that very day at 10.30 p.m. stating that the murder of Smt. Yogita Dewangan was caused by appellant (her husband) by strangulation. According to them, death might have been caused by strangulation. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer (PW-7) sent the dead body of the deceased for post mortem on that very day at 10.30 p.m. stating that the murder of Smt. Yogita Dewangan was caused by appellant (her husband) by strangulation. (2.3) A team of the doctors examined the dead body and conducted the post mortem over the body of deceased Yogita Dewangan at 12.15 noon and they have recorded in their report that there is no evidence of injuries or ligature mark found on the neck or any part of the body and opined that cause of death is suffocation, but the cause of suffocation and mode of suffocation cannot be decided and there is evidence of pregnancy of 1214 weeks. The viscera of the deceased was also preserved and handed over to the police. Immediately after post mortem of the dead body, B.S. Rathore-Investigating Officer (PW-7) upon the disclosure statement made by accused/appellant vide (Ex.P7), seized pillow, without cover, having size 25" x 12", vide seizure memo (Ex.P/8) on 8.7.2008 at 5.30 p.m. Thereafter, Investigating Officer (PW-7) made a request to the Medical Officer, Bhatapara vide (Ex.P-10) on 09.07.2008 raising 'four' queries as to whether the suffocation suffered by the deceased, as recorded in the post mortem report was possible by pressing the neck of the deceased, secondly, whether suffocation was possible by pressing the nose and mouth of the deceased by pillow and thirdly, whether murder was possible by pressing the seized pillow on the n9se and mouth and lastly, whether the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. (2.4) Dr. D.P. Verma (PW-5), one of the doctors, who conducted the postmortem on 10.07.2008 opined that the death of deceased by suffocation was possible, pressing the neck, and also by pressing pillow on the nose and mouth of the deceased and the death of the deceased can be homicidal. However, declined to answer the query No. 3 stating that this can be answered only after examination of seized pillow which was eventually answered on 10.07.2008 at 1.00 pm vide Ex. P/11 stating that by the seized pillow, murder was possible by pressing the pillow on the mouth and nose of the deceased. However, declined to answer the query No. 3 stating that this can be answered only after examination of seized pillow which was eventually answered on 10.07.2008 at 1.00 pm vide Ex. P/11 stating that by the seized pillow, murder was possible by pressing the pillow on the mouth and nose of the deceased. Thereafter, statements of the witnesses were recorded and finally after completing investigation, the Police filed the charge sheet against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. (2.5) The appellant/accused was put to trial before the trial Court. At the commencement of the trial, the charges were framed against the accused/appellant on 4.9.2008 for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code stating that on 08.07.2008 the appellant in his residence situated at K.K. Ward, Bhatapara caused murder of his wife Smt. Yogita Dewangan alias Rani by pressing pillow on her nose and mouth and also by strangulating her by both his hands. (2.6) The appellant abjured the guilt and entered into defence by facing the trial. The prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses to bring home the offence and brought on record as many as 21 document as Ex. P-1 to EX.P-21 to prove its case, however, appellant did not examine any witness in his defence. (2.7) First Information Report (Ex. P-2) was formally proved by Shri B.S. Rathore (PW-7), who registered the FIR. However, the postmortem report was proved by one of the doctors namely Dr. D.P. Verma (PW-5), who was the member of the team conducting the postmortem over the dead body of the deceased. (2.8) The appellant-accused denied all questions put to him in his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and did not furnish any explanation whatsoever. (2.9) The Trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence brought on record by the prosecution and taking into consideration the defence version, convicted the accused/appellant for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. The conviction of the appellant is mainly based on circumstantial evidence as well as extra judicial confession as there were no eyewitness to the incident. 3. The conviction of the appellant is mainly based on circumstantial evidence as well as extra judicial confession as there were no eyewitness to the incident. 3. In convicting the accused/appellant for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for murder of his wife Smt. Yogita Dewangan, the trial Court has concurrently relied upon, those circumstances which according to it had been established by the prosecution, which are as under :- (i) Appellant-Ashok Dewangan had strong suspicion on his wife Smt. Yogita Dewangan's character alleging illicit relations with other man. (ii) Appellant used to harass deceased Smt. Yogita Dewangan doubting her character. (iii) Deceased Yogita Dewangan was carrying pregnancy of 4-6 weeks on the date of incident. (iv) The relationship between appellant and deceased was strange on account of alleged illicit relation. (v) On the date of death, the appellant was present in his house situated at K.K. Ward, Bhatapara. (vi) Appellant-Ashok Dewangan has made extrajudicial confession before Manrakhan Dewangan (PW-1) and Ramkishun (PW-4) being the panch witnesses and they have seen the dead body of the deceased and also noticed swelling on the neck of the deceased on 8.7.2008 (noon). 4. Shri B.P. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the prosecution has absolutely and miserably failed to establish the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt. Shri Sharma further submits that the trial Court has committed legal error in holding that the death of the deceased was caused by the appellant. He also submits that the death of Smt. Yogita Dewangan was not homicidal in nature as there is no legal evidence on record to hold that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. Shri Sharma argued that there are material contradictions between the ocular evidence and the medical evidence, as adduced by the prosecution. He also submits that the death of Smt. Yogita Dewangan was not homicidal in nature as there is no legal evidence on record to hold that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. Shri Sharma argued that there are material contradictions between the ocular evidence and the medical evidence, as adduced by the prosecution. To substantiate/strengthen his submission Shri Sharma placed reliance upon post mortem appearance (external & internal) due to cause producing suffocation as observed by Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology (Twenty third Edition) page 594 to 595 and submitted that in homicidal smothering affected by forcible application of the hand over the mouth and the nostrils, bruises and abrasions are often found on the lips, and inner mucosal surface of lips may be found lacerated' from pressure on the teeth and in absence of such signs in the body of the deceased, the prosecution case must fall on the ground. According to Mr. Sharma, although the Naksha Panchayat-nama records the swelling on the neck of the deceased, allegedly noticed by panch witnesses, but Doctor conducting the post mortem over the body of the deceased has clearly recorded that they did not find any evidence of injuries or ligature mark. In other words, neither the doctor found any evidence of ligature mark on the neck nor on any other part of the body of the deceased. He further submits that none of the features and symptoms which could be caused by smothering was found in the medical examination of the deceased by the doctors, conducting the post mortem over the body of the deceased-Yogita Dewangan. 5. Shri Sharma lastly submits that the extra judicial confession relied upon by the trial Court is wholly unacceptable piece of evidence. Alternatively, he submitted that, the extra judicial confession is a very weak kind of evidence and conviction cannot be based solely upon the extra judicial confession, while concluding his submission, he submitted that Manrakhan Dewangan (PW-1) is wholly unreliable witness and the judgment of conviction recorded and sentence awarded to appellant/accused is liable to be set aside. 6. Alternatively, he submitted that, the extra judicial confession is a very weak kind of evidence and conviction cannot be based solely upon the extra judicial confession, while concluding his submission, he submitted that Manrakhan Dewangan (PW-1) is wholly unreliable witness and the judgment of conviction recorded and sentence awarded to appellant/accused is liable to be set aside. 6. Per-contra, Shri Rama Kant Mishra, learned Deputy Advocate General submits that all the evidences, brought on record, fully supported the case of the prosecution, that on 8.7.2008 the accused/appellant in his house cased, murder of the deceased by strangulation i.e. pressing pillow on nose & mouth as well as strangulating her by both hands. Thus, all ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 302 of the IPC against the appellant is available and the prosecution had fulfilled the same and, therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and considered the rival submissions made by them and perused the original record of the trial Court. 8. First of all, we shall consider as to whether it has been established by the prosecution that death of Yogita Dewangan was homicidal in nature. It is true that one of the essential ingredients of the offence was homicide in nature. It is true that one of the essential ingredients of the offence of culpable homicide required to be proved by the prosecution is that the appellant/accused ‘caused the death: of the person alleged to have been killed. This means that before seeking to prove that the accused is the perpetrator of the murder, it must be established that homicidal death has been caused and cogent and satisfactory proof of the homicidal death of the victim must be adduced by the prosecution. Such proof may be by the direct ocular account of an eyewitness, or by circumstantial evidence, or by both. But where the fact of homicidal death is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence alone, the circumstances must be of a clinching and definitive character unerringly leading to the inference that the victim concerned has met a homicidal death. Thus, the fact of homicidal death, therefore, can be proved by telling and inculpating circumstances which definitely lead to the conclusion that within all human probability, the deceased has been murdered by accused concerned. 9. Thus, the fact of homicidal death, therefore, can be proved by telling and inculpating circumstances which definitely lead to the conclusion that within all human probability, the deceased has been murdered by accused concerned. 9. Manrakhan Dewangan (PW-1), one of the panch witness and father of the deceased has deposed that when he went to the house of accused/appellant - Ashok Dewangan, he saw that the dead body of his daughter was lying on the bed and also noticed swelling (halka) in the neck of the deceased, eyes were open and he further deposed that he was informed by father of the appellant, that appellant has caused the murder of deceased - Yogita Dewangan by strangulation. 10. Ramkishun (PW-4), another panch witness has also deposed that there was no injury on the body of the deceased except on neck. 11. Thus, aforesaid two panch witnesses have deposed before the court below that they have noticed swelling on the neck of the deceased on being called for preparation of Naksha Panchyat-nama (Ex.P-4) by the Police Officer pursuant to the notice (Ex.P-3). 12. When the aforesaid fact of swelling over the neck of the deceased is examined with reference to medical evidence brought on record, the port mortem report (Ex.P-9), which reads as under :- (i) Post mortal staining on the back side of the deceased. (ii) No any evidence of injury or ligature found on neck, or on any part of the body. (iii) Uterus enlarged up to size of 12-14 weeks, of pregnancy. Her uterus is cut and torn. rhu o{k ¼1½ ijnk] ilyh vkSj dkseyLo ¼2½ QqQl Healthy ¼3½ daB vkSj ‘okl uyh ¼4½ nkfguk QsQM+k ¼5½ ck;kW QsQM+k Congested ¼6½ isfjvksu ijdjflve ¼7½ g`n; ¼8½ o`gn~ okfgdk Healthy pkj mnj ¼1½ ijnk ¼2½ vkWrksa dh f>Yyh ¼3½ eqag rFkk xzkluyh] xzluh Healthy ¼4½ isV ,oa mlds Hkhrj dh oLrq,a Healthy and contains small amount of par balls digested food ¼5½ NksVh vkWr vkSj mlds Hkhrj dh oLrq,a ¼6½ cM+h vkWr vkSj mlds Hkhrj dh oLrq, a Healthy ¼7½ fod`rq ¼8½ Iyhgk ¼9½ xqnkZ Congested ¼10½ ew=k’k Healthy ¼11½ Hkhrj vkSj ckgjh tusfUn Uterus enlarged up to size of about 12-14 weeks of pregnancy. Her uterus is cut and is having fetus. 13. The aforesaid postmortem report has been formally proved by Dr. Her uterus is cut and is having fetus. 13. The aforesaid postmortem report has been formally proved by Dr. D.P. Verma, one of the doctors, who conducted the postmortem by stating before the Court that on postmortem, he neither found any injury over the body of the deceased nor found any ligature mark over the neck of the deceased. Thus, postmortem report clearly reveals. that there was no injury or ligature found on the neck or any other part of the body of deceased, thus the ocular evidence of panch witness namely Manrakhan Dewangan (PW-1) and Ram Kisun (PW-4) that deceased Yogita Dewangan had swelling on the neck, is not corroborated by medical evidence brought on record. 14. Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology Twenty - third Edition, page 538 & 539 speaks about post mortem appearances (external & internal) due to cause producing suffocation, which reads as under :- "Post-mortem Appearance Post mortem appearances are external and internal. (i) External Appearance The external appearance may be due to the cause producing suffocation, or to axphyxia. (a) Appearance due to the Cause Producing Suffocation : In homicidal smothering, affected by the forcible application of the hand over the mouth and the nostrils, bruises and abrasions are often found on the lips and on the angles of the mouth, and alongside the nostrils. The inner mucosal surface of the lips may be found lacerated from pressure on the teeth. The nose may be flattened, and its septum may be fractured from pressure of the hand, but these signs are, in Modi's experience, very rare. There may be bruises and abrasions on the cheeks and the molar regions, or on the lower jaw, if there has been a struggle. Rarely, fracture or dislocation of the cervical vettebrae may occur if the neck has been forcibly wrenched in any attempt at smothering with the hand. No local signs of violence will be found, if a soft cloth or pillow has been used to block the mouth and nostrils. In compression of the chest, external signs of injury may not be present, but the ribs are usually fractured on both the sides. No local signs of violence will be found, if a soft cloth or pillow has been used to block the mouth and nostrils. In compression of the chest, external signs of injury may not be present, but the ribs are usually fractured on both the sides. In homicidal compression of the chest brought about by the hands or knees of a murderer or by some other hard material, bruises and abrasions, symmetrical on both sides, are usually found on the skin together with extravasation of the blood in the subcutaneous tissues. Rarely, along with the ribs the sternum is also fractured. It should, however, be remembered that the traumatic asphyxia produces variable findings. In a fair person, purple suffusiol1 of skin above the point of compression is apparent in severe fixation of the chest by mechanical compression. There may not be any external or internal signs where the pressure is slight or evenly distributed. (b) Appearance due to asphyxia : The face may be pale or suffused. The eyes are open, the eyeballs are prominent, and the conjunctivae are congested and sometimes there are petechial hemorrhages. The lips are livid, and the tongue sometimes protruded. Bloody froth comes out of the mouth and the nostrils. The skin shows punctiform ecchymoses with lividity of the limbs. Rupture of the tympanum may occur from a violent effort at respiration. (ii) Internal Appearance Rags, mud or any other foreign matter may be found in the mouth, throat, larynx or trachea, when suffocation has been caused by the impaction of a foreign substance in the air-passage. It may also be found in the pharynx or the oesophagus. The mucous membrane of the trachea is usually bright red, covered with bloody froth and congested. The lungs are congested and emphysematous. They may be lacerated or contused even without any fracture of the rib, if death has been caused by pressure on the chest. Punctiform subpleural ecchymoses (Tardieu spots) are usually present at the root, base, and the lower margins of the lungs, but they are not characteristic of death of suffocation, as they may also be present in asphyxia death from other causes. They are also found on the thymus, pericardium, and along the roots of the coronary vessels. The lungs may be found quite normal, if death has occurred rapidly. They are also found on the thymus, pericardium, and along the roots of the coronary vessels. The lungs may be found quite normal, if death has occurred rapidly. The right side of the heart is often full of dark fluid blood, and the left empty. The blood does not readily coagulate; hence, wounds caused after death may bleed. The brain is generally congested, and so are the abdominal organs, especially the liver, spleen and kidneys. 15. Dr. D.P. Verma (PW-5), Medical Officer in his statement before the trial Court has stated as under:- ^^¼1½ eSa 8 twu 2005 ls lkeqnkf;d LokLF; dsanz HkkVkaikjk esa inLFk FkkA ¼2½ eSaus 8 tqykbZ 2008 dks e`frdk ;ksfxrk nsokaxu iRuh v’kksd nsokaxu dk ‘ko ijh{k.k fd;k Fkk ftlesa eq>s fuEu phts izkIr gqbZ%& ‘kjhj BaMk Fkk] gkFk iSj vdM+s gq, Fks] ‘kjhj ds ihB esa iksLVekVZy LVsu ¼ykfyek fy;k gqvk½ vkSj mlds ‘kjhj esa fdlh izdkj dh dksbZ pksV ;k xys esa fdlh izdkj dk fyxspj ugha ik;k x;k FkkA ¼9½ lgh gS fd ‘okalkjks/ku ukd] eqag dks diM+k ls] gkFk ls ;k rfd;k ls nckdj fd;k tkrk gSA lgh gS fd mDr fLFkfr esa ‘oklkjks/ku djus ij eqag ds vklikl uk[kwu ds fu’kku fey ldrs gSA lgh gS fd mDr fLFkfr esa gksaB ds Åij dh f>Yyh nkarksa ls fofnfM+rk fy;s gq, gks ldrh gS vkSj ukfldk dh gM~Mh VwVh gqbZ fey ldrh gSA lgh gS fd ;fn Nkrh ij ncko Mky dj ¼Nkrh ij cSBdj½ ;fn eqag ukd dks nck;k tk;s rks mDr fLFkfr esa Nkrh dh ifLy;kW VwVh gqbZ fey ldrh gSA lgh gS fd mDr izdkj dh fLFkfr esa eqag vkSj ukd ls >kx fudysxk vkSj bl >kx esa [kwu feyk jgsxkA lgh gS fd mDr y{k.k eSaus e`frdk ds ‘ko esa foPNsnu ds le; ugha ik;k FkkA** 16. We have also carefully gone through the medical evidence brought on record by the prosecution. A large number of symptoms, as indicated by learned Author in his authoritative text, were absent which ordinarily point out to the cause of death, that is asphyxia by smothering. Most of the symptoms noticed by authoritative book of Modi should have remained present but no saliva, blood, and tissue cells were found in the pillow, no scratches abrasions distinct finger nail marks, or bruises, laceration of soft part on deceased's face was noticed. Most of the symptoms noticed by authoritative book of Modi should have remained present but no saliva, blood, and tissue cells were found in the pillow, no scratches abrasions distinct finger nail marks, or bruises, laceration of soft part on deceased's face was noticed. No brushings or laceration was found in lips, gums and tongue except congestion in lungs, spleen, kidney & liver of the deceased, no injury to the muscles of neck and no fracture of larynx trachea was found and absence of the aforesaid symptoms, creates reasonable doubt with regard to the cause of death of deceased that it was homicidal in nature and it is unsafe to rely upon the ocular evidence of the panch witnesses namely deceased's father Manrakhan Dewangan and Ram Kishan (PW-4) solely for purpose of coming to the conclusion that death of the deceased is proved by the prosecution as homicidal in nature and thus we hold that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that death of deceased Yogita Dewangan was homicidal in nature. 17. The next circumstance, that is held to have been established by the trial Court is that on the fateful day, the appellant was in the company of the deceased and living together. Thus, the trial Court has laid some emphasis on the theory of the last seen, while finding the accused guilty of the offence by holding that on the fateful night the appellant was present in the house along with his wife Smt. Yogita Dewangan. In our opinion, the theory of last seen together as put forth by the prosecution is shaky and inconclusive and on that basis alone no conviction can be founded. 18. It is well settled and the consistent view of the Supreme Court that where the only circumstantial evidence taken resort to by the prosecution is that the accused and the deceased were last seen together, it may raise suspicion but it is not independently sufficient to lead to a finding of guilt. 19. The Supreme Court in case of State of Karnataka Vs. M.V. Mahesh (2003) 3 SCC 353 , has held as under: "3. ......... Merely being seen last together is not enough. 19. The Supreme Court in case of State of Karnataka Vs. M.V. Mahesh (2003) 3 SCC 353 , has held as under: "3. ......... Merely being seen last together is not enough. What has to be established in a case of this nature is definite evidence to indicate that Beena had been done to death of which the respondent is or must be aware as also proximate to the time of being last seen together. No such clinching evidence is put forth. It is no doubt true that even in the absence of the corpus delicti it is possible to establish in an appropriate case commission of murder on appropriate material being made available to the court." 20. The Supreme Court in case of Arjun Marik Vs. State of Bihar 1994 Supp. (2) SCC 372, has held that where the appellant was alleged to have gone to the house of one Sitaram in the evening of 19.07.1985 and had stayed in the night at the house of deceased Sitaram and even if it was accepted that they were there, it would, at best, amount to be the evidence of the appellants having been last seen together with the deceased. The Supreme Court has held as under: "31. ....... it is settled law that the only circumstance of last seen will not complete the chain of circumstances to record a finding that it is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and, therefore, no conviction, on that basis alone, can be founded." 21. In the instant case, as we have already held in the foregoing paragraphs, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the death of Smt. Yogita Dewangan was homicidal in nature and evidence of last seen together is shaky and inconclusive, therefore, in the light of aforesaid findings so recorded, we are unable to hold that the Trial Court was justified in taking theory of last seen as one of the incriminating circumstances against the appellant/accused to base conviction of the appellant/accused for the alleged offence. 22. The next circumstance, on which the trial Court has laid some stress, is the Extra Judicial Confession made by accused/appellant to Manrakhan Dewangan (PW-1) in presence of Ram Kishun (PW-4). 22. The next circumstance, on which the trial Court has laid some stress, is the Extra Judicial Confession made by accused/appellant to Manrakhan Dewangan (PW-1) in presence of Ram Kishun (PW-4). This witness (PW4) has deposed before the court that on the date of incident, after funeral accused/appellant along with father of the deceased - Manrakhan Dewangan (PW-1) came to the police station and on being asked by Manrakhan Dewangan (PW-1), accused/appellant made extrajudicial confession that he had suspicion on the character of his wife Smt. Yogita Dewangan and, therefore, he caused death of his wife by strangulation. 23. We have scanned the statement of Manrakhan Dewangan (PW-1) made before the Court and its perusal would show that no such statement has been made by Manrakhan Dewangan (PW-1) either before the court or before the police under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that the accused/appellant had stated to him that he had caused death of his wife by strangulation, as such extra judicial confession alleged to have been, made by the accused/appellant to Manrakhan Dewangan (PW-1) in presence of Ramkishun (PW4) is not corroborated by other prosecution witness (PW-1). 24. The Supreme Court in case of Sahadevan Vs. State of T.N. (2012) 6 SCC 403 , has held the principles which would make an extra-judicial confession an admissible piece of evidence capable for forming the basis of conviction of an accused. These precepts would guide the judicial mind while dealing with the veracity of cases where the prosecution heavily relies upon an extra-judicial confession alleged to have been made by the accused:- (i) The extra-judicial confession is a weak evidence by itself. It has to be examined by the court with greater, care and caution. (ii) It should be made voluntarily and should be truthful. (iii) It should inspire confidence. (iv) An extra-judicial confession attains greater credibility and evidentiary value if it is supported by a chain of cogent circumstances and is further corroborated by other prosecution evidence. (v) For an extra-judicial confession to be the basis of conviction, it should not suffer from any material discrepancies and inherent improbabilities. (vi) Such statement essentially has to be proved like any other fact and in accordance with law. 25. (v) For an extra-judicial confession to be the basis of conviction, it should not suffer from any material discrepancies and inherent improbabilities. (vi) Such statement essentially has to be proved like any other fact and in accordance with law. 25. Having stated the principles which may be kept in mind by the court while examining the acceptability and evidentiary value of the extra-judicial confession, it appears that alleged extra-judicial confession made by the appellant/accused to Manrakhan Dewangan (PW-1) in presence of Ram Kisun (PW4) does not inspire confidence and as is, not corroborated by other prosecution witnesses, namely Manrakhan Dewangan (PW-1) and, therefore, the trial Court has committed serious error in accepting, the extrajudicial confession as an incriminating circumstances for convicting the appellant-accused. 26. Thus for the foregoing reasons, it is held that the prosecution has not been able to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused/appellant caused death of deceased Yogita Dewangan by strangulation on 8.7.2008 as well as also the other circumstances, namely last seen together. The theory of last seen together is not consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the appellant/accused and the extra judicial confession alleged to be relied upon by the trial court is not inspiring confidence being weak piece of evidence and, thus, the appellant/accused is entitled for benefit of doubt. 27. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment of the trial Court convicting the accused/appellant for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and sentencing him for the life imprisonment cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly set aside. Appeal filed by the appellant is allowed. He is in custody. We direct that appellant/Accused - Ashok Dewangan be released forthwith, unless required in any other case. HEAD LINES Accused cannot be convicted under, Section 302 IPC only on the evidence of last seen unless death is proved to be homicidal. vfHk;qDr dks /kkjk 302 HkkŒ nŒ laŒ lafgrk ds varxZr n.Muh; vijk/k ds fy;s dsoy vafre ckj lkFk ns[ks tkus ds vk/kkj ij nks”kfl) ugha fd;k tk ldrk tc rd fd e`R;q ekuoo/k izd`fr dh lkfcr u gksA Appeal Allowed.