JUDGMENT : A.B. Chaudhari, J: 1. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 2nd May, 2012 passed by the Sessions Judge, Gondia, in Sessions Trial No. 91 of 2010, convicting the appellant-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentencing him to Imprisonment for Life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for six months for the first offence, and Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three months, for the latter offence, the appellant has preferred the present appeal before this Court. Facts 2. Briefly stated, it is the case of the prosecution that the appellant was residing at village Dhanegaon with his wife Pushpabai, step-daughter Jantribai and deceased Rajesh Markam, who was the husband of Jantribai, in a hut built on the plot allotted by the Government. The accused had married with Pushpabai, who already had a daughter - Jantribai from her earlier husband, who was ill-treating her and that is why she had left him. Her daughter - Jantribai was married to Rajesh Markam. The appellant was unhappy with the behaviour of Rajesh, the deceased, since he had on the occasion of Holi broken the leg of the appellant. About a month before 10th June, 2010, the appellant, Pushpabai, his wife, Jantribai, his stepdaughter and Rajesh Markam, Jantribai’s husband, took their meals. Jantribai slept in the cattle shed, Rajesh slept in the hut, while appellant and his wife Pushpabai slept in the house. At about 5.00 am, Jantribai got up, and saw that Rajesh, her husband, was not there though his footwears were lying. Thereafter she went to jungle for collecting Mohwa flowers, and came back at about 1.00 p.m., and made enquiry with the appellant about Rajesh, who informed that he had gone for selling the books, and stated that he would come back. Jantribai waited for about two weeks for return of her husband Rajesh, the deceased, and then asked the appellant to lodge a report to the Police Station, since there was no trace, but the appellant told not to lodge the report, saying he would come back. Later the appellant reached Jantribai at Allahabad. Jantribai waited for about two weeks for return of her husband Rajesh, the deceased, and then asked the appellant to lodge a report to the Police Station, since there was no trace, but the appellant told not to lodge the report, saying he would come back. Later the appellant reached Jantribai at Allahabad. On 10th June, 2010, at about 7.00 p.m., PW 1 - Shivlal, Police Patil, learnt from the villagers that foul smell was coming from the house of the appellant and, therefore, the said Police Patil, Asaram, Premlal and Kedulal all went to the house of the accused, but since it was night, they kept quiet. On the next day, at about 6.00 am., they again visited the house of the accused and found the septic tank of the latrine open and two cement bags containing human bones. On enquiry by PW 1 - Shivlal with the accused, the appellant told that prior to one-and-half month, he killed his son-in-law – Rajesh because Rajesh was consuming liquor and misbehaving with him and then put his dead body in the septic tank of the latrine. The Police Patil then went to Salekasa Police Station and lodged the report, which registered offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the Court. 3. The prosecution examined ten witnesses and accused pleaded not guilty. The Trial Court convicted the appellant for the offence of murder and for causing disappearance of the evidence relying on the circumstantial evidence, since there is no direct evidence. The Trial Court relied on the following circumstances:- [a] Extra judicial confession made by the accused to PW 1 - Shivlal, Police Patil. [b] Recovery of bones from the possession of appellant and DNA report in respect of bones that they were of deceased Rajesh. [c] PW 4 – Jantribai’s evidence that the appellant asked her not to lodge report after two weeks when she asked him to lodge a report, and on the contrary dropped her at Allahabad. [d] Suppression of facts by the appellant about the dead body and bones in the septic tank and in the house. 4. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant argued that an extra judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence, and was required to be rejected by the Trial Court. [d] Suppression of facts by the appellant about the dead body and bones in the septic tank and in the house. 4. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant argued that an extra judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence, and was required to be rejected by the Trial Court. The evidence of PW 1 -Shivlal, Police Patil, is unbelievable. The First Information Report is lodged after one month and it is unbelievable that smell of the dead body, if at all it was dumped in the septic tank of the latrine, would not spread for about a month. The story of recovery of bones from the possession of the appellant is wholly falsified and wrong, since, admittedly, thirty -fifty police personnel present on the spot asked the appellant to dig out the courtyard and bones were taken from the courtyard. The said story is contradictory since, according to some witnesses, the bones were kept at one end of the courtyard and some of the bones were found at a distance of half km. DNA test in respect of the bones to show that they were of Rajesh cannot be relied, and has to be rejected in view of the fact that even bones of animals were found by the Anatomy Department of the Govt. Medical College. Though bones were collected from two places, they were mixed up when taken into possession by the police and were again separated in the Anatomy Department of the Medical College, which report itself indicates that some of them were animal bones and some were human bones. The Trial Court has forgotten the basic principle laid down by the Supreme Court from time to time that suspicion, however, strong and grave, cannot take place of proof and, therefore, benefit of doubt ought to have been given to the appellant-accused rather than the prosecution, since there is no direct evidence and the alleged circumstantial evidence is short of proof of murder. The learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, prayed for acquittal of the appellant. 5. Per contra, learned APP vehemently opposed the appeal and argued that the prosecution has been able to complete the chain of circumstantial evidence, and has proved the case of murder against the appellant beyond any doubt. The learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, prayed for acquittal of the appellant. 5. Per contra, learned APP vehemently opposed the appeal and argued that the prosecution has been able to complete the chain of circumstantial evidence, and has proved the case of murder against the appellant beyond any doubt. The Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant upon appreciation of evidence and there is no need to interfere with the Judgment of the Trial Court. 6. We have gone through the entire evidence with the assistance of the learned counsel for the rival parties. We have carefully examined the circumstances used by the Trial Court for the purpose of convicting the appellant. We would discuss the entire evidence while recording our reasons and conclusions. 7. It is not in dispute that the First Information Report was lodged on 11th June, 2010 by PW 1 - Shivlal and it is alleged in the First Information Report itself that the murder had taken place a month before the said date. PW 1 -Shivlal stated in his evidence before the Court that on 10th June, 2010 he was informed by the villagers that there was smell from the gutter of the house of the accused and, therefore, at about 7.00 p.m., he went to the house of the appellant. He noticed bones in two gunny bags and the accused near the latrine of his house. He was accompanied by Asaram, Premlal and Kebulal. On his enquiry with the accused about the bones, accused informed him that he had killed his son-in-law and the dead body was dropped in the gutter. He then went to Salekasa Police Station and lodged a report on the next day, i.e., 11th June, 2010. In his cross-examination, PW 1 - Shivlal stated that on the East side of the house of the accused, there is a vacant house under the Govt. scheme. In that vacant house, one old person used to reside and that old person died before the incident. He then stated that the gunny bags in which he saw the bones were not closed and were visible. He also stated that dead animals sometimes used to be buried and sometimes used to be abandoned. 8. Let us first state the legal position as to the extra-judicial confession. The Supreme Court summarized the law in the case of Sahadevan & another Vs. He also stated that dead animals sometimes used to be buried and sometimes used to be abandoned. 8. Let us first state the legal position as to the extra-judicial confession. The Supreme Court summarized the law in the case of Sahadevan & another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu [ (2012) 6 SCC 403 ] and has held thus:- “14. It is a settled principles of criminal jurisprudence that extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence. Wherever the court, upon due appreciation of the entire prosecution evidence, intends to base a conviction on an extra-juridical confession, it must ensure that the same inspires confidence and is corroborated by other prosecution evidence. If, however, the extra-juridical confession suffers from material discrepancies or inherent improbabilities and does not appear to be cogent as per the prosecution version, it may be difficult for the court to base a conviction on such a confession. In such circumstances, the court would be fully justified in ruling such evidence out of consideration. 15. Now, we may examine some judgments of this Court dealing with this aspect. 15.1 In Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab this Court stated the principle that : (SCC P. 265, para 10) “10. An extra judicial confession by its very nature is rather a weak type of evidence and requires appreciation with a great deal of care and caution. Where an extra-juridical confession is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, its credibility becomes doubtful and it loses its importance.” 15.2 In Pakkirisamyv. State of T.N., the Court held that : (SCC p. 162, para 8) 8. ...It is well settled that it is a rule of caution where the court would generally look for an independent reliable corroboration before placing any reliance upon such extrajudicial confession.” 15.3 Again in Kavitav. State of T.N. The Court stated the dictum that : (SCC P. 109, para 4) “4. There is no doubt that convictions can be based on extra-judicial confession but it is well settled that in the very nature of things, it is a weak piece of evidence. State of T.N. The Court stated the dictum that : (SCC P. 109, para 4) “4. There is no doubt that convictions can be based on extra-judicial confession but it is well settled that in the very nature of things, it is a weak piece of evidence. It is to be proved just like any other fact and the value thereof depends upon the veracity of the [witnesses] to whom it is made._ 15.4 While explaining the dimensions of the principles governing the admissibility and evidentiary value of an extra-judicial confessions, this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram stated the principle that : (SCC P. 192, para 19) “19. An extra judicial confession, if voluntary and true and made in a fit state of mind, can be relied upon by the court. The confession will have to be proved like any other fact. The value of the evidence as to confession, like any other evidence, depends upon the veracity of the witness to whom it has been made.” The Court further expressed the view that : (SCC p. 192, para 19) “19. ...Such a confession can be relied upon and conviction can be founded thereon if the evidence about the confession comes from the mouth of witnesses who appear to be unbiased, not even remotely inimical to the accused, and in respect of whom nothing is brought out which may tend to indicate that he may have a motive of attributing an untruthful statement to the accused....” 15.5 In AlokeNath Dutta v. State of W.B. The Court, while holding the placing of reliance on extra-judicial confession by the lower courts in absence of other corroborating material as unjustified, observed : (SCC pp 265-66, paras 87 & 89) 87. Confession ordinarily is admissible in evidence. It is a relevant fact. It can be acted upon. Confession may under certain circumstances and subject to law laid down by the superior judiciary from time to time form the basis for conviction. It is, however, trite that for the said purpose the court has to satisfy itself in regard to : (i) voluntariness of the confession; (ii) truthfulness of the confession; and (iii) corroboration. 89. A detailed confession which would otherwise be within the special knowledge of the accused may itself be not sufficient to raise a presumption that confession is a truthful one. 89. A detailed confession which would otherwise be within the special knowledge of the accused may itself be not sufficient to raise a presumption that confession is a truthful one. Main features of a confession are required to be verified. If it is not done, no conviction can be based only on the sole basis thereof.” 15.8 Extra-judicial confession must be established to be true and made voluntarily and in a fit state of mind. The words of the witnesses must be clear, unambiguous and should clearly convey that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime. The extra-judicial confession can be accepted and can be the basis of conviction, if it passes the test of credibility. The extra-judicial confession should inspire confidence and the court should find out whether there are other cogent circumstances on record to support it. (Ref. Sk. Yusuf v. State of W.B., and Pancho v. State of Haryana). The principles 16. Upon a proper analysis of the above referred judgments of this Court, it will be appropriate to state the principles which would make an extra judicial confession an admissible piece of evidence capable of 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 evidentirary 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.” 9. Thus, keeping in mind the above legal principles, we proceed further. It is true that PW 1 - Shivlal claims that an extra judicial confession was made to him by the appellant-accused. It is well settled that extra judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and, therefore, such evidence has to be carefully assessed. Thus, keeping in mind the above legal principles, we proceed further. It is true that PW 1 - Shivlal claims that an extra judicial confession was made to him by the appellant-accused. It is well settled that extra judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and, therefore, such evidence has to be carefully assessed. In that context we have seen the FIR [Exh.12] lodged by PW 1 - Shivlal with the Police Station. In his oral report given to Police Station, he stated in relation to the alleged extra judicial confession as under:- “I myself and above named villagers asked Ramkisan Dhurve as to whose bones were kept in the gunny bags. Thereupon he told us that about a month before, son-in-law Rajesh Ashok Markam used to harass him under the influence of alcohol and that is why when he was under the influence of alcohol, appellant assaulted him by means of a steel rod and thus murdered him and then his dead body was put by him in the gutter of his Wadi [courtyard], and had placed the cover, but since it was smelling very high, he dug out his bones for being thrown outside.” 10. Though PW 1 Shivlal stated that the said extra judicial confession was made by the accused in the presence of Asaram, Premlal and Khebulal, PW 7 - Asaram did not say a word about it. Prosecution did not examine Khebulal and Premlal. PW 1 - Shivlal did not depose the entire extra judicial confession allegedly given to him which he stated orally to the police when he lodged FIR [Exh.12], and on the contrary, chose to utter only one sentence that the accused told him that he killed his son-in-law and dropped his body in the gutter. But did not say when he killed him. We, therefore, find that the alleged extra judicial confession made to PW 1 - Shivlal cannot be easily believed. The extra judicial confession has to be in unambiguous and, as far as possible, in the same words as that of the accused, which is not the case at hand. We are, therefore, not prepared to accept the extra-judicial confession made to PW 1 -Shivlal for the above reasons in the light of the law pronounced by the Supreme Court. 11. We are, therefore, not prepared to accept the extra-judicial confession made to PW 1 -Shivlal for the above reasons in the light of the law pronounced by the Supreme Court. 11. That apart, FIR was lodged in this case on 11th June, 2010 and it is the case of the prosecution that the murder had taken place before a month from the said date. We are not prepared to believe that villagers would get the smell only on 10th June, 2010, when the murder was allegedly committed a month before and after committing murder, the dead body was put in the gutter. PW 4 -Jantribai, the wife of the deceased, who supported the prosecution, was residing at the house of appellant with her mother. She also does not claim in her evidence about any foul smell for the entire period or even when she asked the appellant after two weeks to lodge missing report. How could all the members reside with foul smell for more than a month. Rigor mortis in a human body forms fast and the smell, if at all the prosecution case is to be believed, must start coming out thirty six hours after the dead body is dumped in. PW 2 - Pushpabai is hostile to the prosecution. 12. PW 3 - Bhaiyalal deposed that deceased Rajesh had attacked the appellant and caused injuries to his legs. He then stated that about fifty-sixty police officers had come on the spot on 11th June, 2010, and at the house of the accused they abused him. Thereafter, the accused removed earth and took out the bones and flesh. Thereafter the accused went to a nullah which was at a distance of half a kilometer from the house of the accused and took out partly burnt bones. Deceased Rajesh was not seen for the last one-and-half month, and he was informed by the appellant that he had gone to collect leaves and had gone to Banaras. 13. Then there is evidence of PW 6 -Santosh, which is relevant in this connection who deposes that he went along with the police and Medical Officers for recording Panchanama. There was one gutter and ash was taken out of the said gutter, some bones were taken along with the ash. There was one plastic bag containing bones which was in front of the door. There was one gutter and ash was taken out of the said gutter, some bones were taken along with the ash. There was one plastic bag containing bones which was in front of the door. The accused removed the clay from the ground and handed over some bones. He handed over a crow bar which was seized by the police. He handed over pant and shirt which were stained with blood. The police seized bones and the clothes. We have perused Exh.25 -the Spot Panchanama and the evidence of Panch witness Santosh. It is seen from the spot Panchanama that at a distance of about forty feet in the closed compound of the appellant, on the Northern side, at the bottom of the Sagwan tree, two white cement bags were kept in which human bones, half burnt, and flesh, half burnt and ash were found. At about a distance of forty feet, there is a gutter which was inspected and from inside, bad smell was emitting with ash, but there were no human bones or human flesh inside, but only ash was there. At a distance of about seventeen-and-half feet towards East, in one pit, some human bones wrapped in a cloth were found and at a distance of four hundred feet from the house of the appellant, in one nullah, human bones, half burnt were found and they were collected. All the bones were given in the custody of Medical Officer Dr. Shambharkar. It is thus clear from perusal of the Spot Panchanama that bones in all from three spots were collected by the police, i.e., from a distance of forty feet, seventeen-and-half feet and four hundred feet. All these bones were given in the custody of Dr. Shambharkar. Similar is the evidence of PW 10 - Lokchand, Investigating Officer, who also stated that all the bones were collected at one place and they were collected by Dr. Shambharkar in one card board box and he sealed the said box. In this connection, now it is interesting to look at the document [Exh.48], which is an opinion given by the Department of Anatomy, Govt. Medical College, Nagpur. We quote the opinion, which reads thus:- “1. Bones in the Box No. 1 (A) are of human in origin. Sex of deceased appears to be Male. `Age of the deceased above 25 years and below 25 years and below 35 years. Medical College, Nagpur. We quote the opinion, which reads thus:- “1. Bones in the Box No. 1 (A) are of human in origin. Sex of deceased appears to be Male. `Age of the deceased above 25 years and below 25 years and below 35 years. 2. No injuries seen on the cervical vertebrae. 3. Superimposition - Technique (of skull):- This investigation is not done in this Department. 4. Sample for the D N A Analysis is kept in Box No. 1 (B) (It contains 2 humerus Right and Left side). 5. Box No. II contains Non-human bones. Reporting Officer, Sd/- [Dr. K.P. Wankhede], Department of Anatomy Govt. Medical College, Nagpur.” 14. Perusal of the above opinion clearly shows that in all three boxes were prepared from one box, in which all bones were collected from three spots. Box No. 1 (A) shows that the bones were of human origin. Box No. 1 (B) shows that there were two humerus, right and left side and Box No. II contains non-human bones. It is, thus, clear that the Anatomy Department found that Box No. II contains non-human bones. In the light of the above discussion, it is clear to us that it was for the prosecution to prove that the bones seized from the compound of the appellant from a distance of seventeen-and-half feet and forty feet were the human bones, and were not non-human bones. There is total failure on the part of the prosecution in this connection, inasmuch as bones were collected from three different places and one place is at a distance of four hundred feet and were all mixed up and seized in one box without bothering to seize the bones and seal the same in three different packets. To us, it is, thus, clear that the prosecution miserably failed to prove that the bones seized from the compound of the appellant were human bones. Consequently, the DNA test holding that the bones were of Rajesh, the deceased, is of absolutely no assistance to the prosecution and the Trial Court has not even bothered to refer to the document [Exh.48] which was duly proved by the prosecution itself. We thus find that this evidence is of no use to the prosecution. 15. The Trial Court relied upon the evidence of PW 4 -Jantribai. We thus find that this evidence is of no use to the prosecution. 15. The Trial Court relied upon the evidence of PW 4 -Jantribai. Regarding the evidence of Jantribai, we find that the Trial Court relied on her evidence that the appellant advised her not to lodge a report with the Police Station and that the said conduct of the accused was liable to be looked as adverse to him. We do not think so. Merely because the accused advised her not to lodge a report, but wait for the return of the deceased in the background of the fact that the appellant did not like Rajesh due to his behaviour cannot be said to be such conduct which would further the case of prosecution. That Jantribai was then reached to Allahabad cannot be also said to be a circumstance to prove the guilt of the appellant-accused. 16. Taking overall view of the prosecution evidence, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove any circumstances which would prove that the appellant and the appellant alone was the person who committed the murder of the deceased and we, therefore, conclude that the appellant is entitled to be acquitted of the offences charged. In the result, we make the following order:- ORDER Criminal Appeal No. 212 of 2012 is allowed. The Judgment and Order dated 2nd May, 2012 passed by the Sessions Judge, Gondia, in Sessions Trial No. 91 of 2010, convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge of murder under Section 302 and causing evidence of murder to disappear punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. He be set at liberty forthwith unless required in any other case.