JUDGMENT 1. - Ashok, his brother, Raju and father, Thawaria, along with Binnu son of Shivlal Mehtar were tried together by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Kishangarhbas (Alwar). By impugned order dated 14th December, 2005, the trial Court convicted Ashok for offences under Sections 364, 302 and 201 IPC, and acquitted co-accused namely, Raju, Thawaria and Binnu. 2. To assail the judgment, two appeals have been filed. 3. Ashok being convicted for the above said offences, vide a separate order of even date, was sentenced by the trial Court as under:- For offence under Section 364 IPC :To undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- in default thereof, to undergo three months additional simple imprisonment ; For offence under Section 302 IPC: Sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- in default thereof, to undergo three months additional simple imprisonment; For offence under Section 201 IPC : Sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- in default thereof, to undergo three months additional simple imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 4. Appellant Ashok has challenged the judgment of conviction and order of sentence by filing D.B.Criminal Appeal No.95/2006, whereas the State of Rajasthan having not accepted the acquittal of accused Raju, Thawaria and Binnu has instituted D.B.Criminal Appeal NO.515/2006. 5. We shall decide both the appeals together as convicted accused-appellant and acquitted accused, all are represented by Shri Biri Singh Sinsinwar, Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Rajesh Choudahry. 6. Lekhram, the deceased, resident of Beejwad Naruka was married with Suman (P.W.10) daughter of Banwari (P.W.5) resident of Manka, Tehsil Mundawar, Distt. Alwar. Lekhram was married with Suman on 13th May, 2002. He left his house along with his wife on 27th July, 2002, to drop her at her parental house. On 29th July, 2002 a telephonic call was received by Village Pradhan Lalaram (P.W.12) that on the railway line a dead body has been found. Leela Ram (P.W.8), the father of deceased, Lekhram on 4th of August, 2002, made a statement before Sub-Inspector of Police, Rajendra Prasad (P.W.18) SHO, Police Station, Mundawar wherein he stated that his son along with his wife had gone to Village Manka to leave his wife at her parental house. Leela Ram (P.W.8), the father of deceased, Lekhram on 4th of August, 2002, made a statement before Sub-Inspector of Police, Rajendra Prasad (P.W.18) SHO, Police Station, Mundawar wherein he stated that his son along with his wife had gone to Village Manka to leave his wife at her parental house. On 29th July, 2002, he received an information from Lalaram (P.W.12), the Village Pradhan, that he has received an information that Leelaram has expired. Since Leelaram was alive, he contacted Lalaram, who in turn disclosed that he received a telephonic call from Manaka. Leela Ram (P.W.8) knowing fully well that his son, Lekhram had gone to Manka, he along with his other son, Rohtash and nephew, Kallu went to Manka. There Thawaria, whose daughter is married in his Village, informed that Lekhram has died as he was run over by the train. The phone to the village of witness Leelaram (P.W.8) was made at the asking of Thavwaria. He further told that the dead body of Lekhram is lying at Bawal Hospital. Complainant became unconscious. He along with Sarpanch and others reached Bawal Hospital where dead body was handed over to him and Banwarilal (P.W.5). After cremation and performance of last rites, Leelaram (P.W.8) along with Sarpanch Lalaram (P.W.12), brother Pooran (P.W.14) and Chaggan Lal (P.W.16) reached Village Manka, for making inquiries. There Suman (P.W.10) wife of deceased, and other children of Banwari (P.W.5) met him and informed them that since Lekhram, the deceased was demanding money from Thawaria he was beaten up by Ashok son of Thawaria,Raju son of Thawaria,and Binnu brother-in-law of Ashok after quarrel with Thawaria son of Kanhaiya. They further informed that on the night of 28th July,2002, Lekhram was sleeping in front of the house of Smt. Anop, Bhabhi of Suman. From there, he was abducted by Ashok, Raju and Binnu and after taking him from there, they had murdered him in the fields, and had put the dead body on the railway track. Leela Ram (P.W.8) along with others had called for the Panchayat in Village Manka as he learnt that on 28th July,2002 in the evening Lekhram had left house of his in-laws, and had gone towards Majari Railway Station. Leela Ram (P.W.8) along with others had called for the Panchayat in Village Manka as he learnt that on 28th July,2002 in the evening Lekhram had left house of his in-laws, and had gone towards Majari Railway Station. Since he could not catch the train as same had already left, on the asking of Santosh (P.W.9), mother-in-law in relation, he returned to Manka, where he was given beating by Ashok and Raju. Thereafter, Lekhram was abducted from the house of Smt. Anop (P.W.1) and was taken in the fields of village, and was murdered there. 7. The above said FIR was investigated. A charge-sheet under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted against all the four accused. The report of investigation along with the accused was committed to the Court of Sessions. The trial was entrusted to Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Kishangarhbas (Alwar). 8. The case of prosecution rest on following two circumstances:- (i). That the deceased was last seen with the accused. This piece of evidence has emerged in the testimony of Smt. Anop (P.W.1). (ii).That accused made an extra-judicial confession admitting guilt on their part. 9. To prove this piece of evidence, prosecution has examined Prakash (P.W.3), Amar Singh (P.W.4), Banwari (P.W.5) (father-in-law of the deceased), Ram Niwash (P.W.6), Leela Ram (P.W.8) (father of the deceased), Pooran (P.W.14), Gajjiram (P.W.15), Chhagan Lal (P.W.16). 10. The trial Court in its impugned judgment has returned the following findings:- (a) That Anop (P.W.1) who has deposed in the Court that on the intervening night of 28th July, 2002 and 29th July, 2002, only Ashok was last seen with the deceased Lekhram, is a reliable witness. (b) That as per medical evidence, nature of injuries present on the dead body prove that deceased was murdered, and it is not a case of railway accident. (d) That Ashok accused made an extra-judicial confession before Panchayat, held on 3.08.2002 and deposition of the witnesses examined by the prosecution on this aspect are reliable. (e) The Court further held that since at the time of making extra-judicial confession, accused Raju and Binnu were not present, same cannot be used against them. Furthermore, since Thawaria had not confessed the extra-judicial confession is admissible only against Ashok and none-else. 11. (e) The Court further held that since at the time of making extra-judicial confession, accused Raju and Binnu were not present, same cannot be used against them. Furthermore, since Thawaria had not confessed the extra-judicial confession is admissible only against Ashok and none-else. 11. In view of the finding given above, the trial Court convicted and sentenced appellant Ashok, but acquitted Raju, Thawaria and Binnu co-accused respondents in the State appeal. 12. Dissatisfied with the judgment, whereby Raju, Thavariya and Binnu, were acquitted, the State has preferred an appeal whereas as stated, earlier, Ashok has instituted an appeal to challenge his conviction and sentence. 13. Before we deal with the arguments raised by counsel for the parties, we shall take brief notice of the evidence of the material witnesses. 14. Smt. Anop (P.W.1) stated that Suman was daughter of brother of her husband. She knew Lekhram. He had come to the Village Manka to drop off his wife. On Sunday, Raju and Ashok had a quarrel with Lekhram as he had demanded money from Thawaria. Raju and Ashok had given him a beating. There is a temple of Kali Mata, in front of her house, deceased Lekhram had slept there on a cot. 15. At about 11 P.M., Ashok came on a cycle. On seeing her, he pretended as he is urinating and after sometime, Ashok took Lekhram on a cycle towards school. Thereafter, Lekhram had not returned. A person came in the morning and informed that son-in-law of Banwari (P.W.5) is lying dead on the railway line. She along with her family members went there and found the dead body of Lekhram. 16. In the cross-examination, she stated that it is not known to her on which date Lekhram had come. She further stated that due to beating given to Lekhram, he had not suffered any injury. She further stated that on coming to know that the dead body of Lekhram is lying on the railway track going towards Majari Railway Station, she had gone there. She further stated that after seeing the dead body, she returned home, and had not disclosed to Banwari (P.W.5) or to her father-in-law that Lekhram was taken away by accused Ashok. She further stated that she had attended the cremation of Lekhram. She further stated that she was present at the Bawal Hospital, where the post-mortem was conducted. She further stated that after seeing the dead body, she returned home, and had not disclosed to Banwari (P.W.5) or to her father-in-law that Lekhram was taken away by accused Ashok. She further stated that she had attended the cremation of Lekhram. She further stated that she was present at the Bawal Hospital, where the post-mortem was conducted. She admitted that at the time of postmortem, Officials of the railway police were present, but they had not made any inquiry from her. Banwari (P.W.5) had not asked her anything in front of the railway police. 17. Prakash (P.W.3) stated that after the death of Lekhram, Panchayat was convened and same was attended by 200 or 250 persons. Panchayat had gathered on the asking of Thawaria. Before the panchayat, Ashok admitted that he had killed Lekhram along with his brother Raju and his brother-in-law Binnu. 18. In cross-examination this witness admitted that Subhash was Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat. In that Gram Panchayat, no writing was prepared. Amar Singh, Sohan and Jaynarayan of his village were panchas. Kanhayalal was Up-Sarpanch. Panchayat had commenced around 11-12 A.M. and had continued upto 1.30 or 2.00 P.M. 19. Amar Singh (P.W.4) stated that a panchayat was held. In the panchayat Ashok had admitted that he, his brother Raju, and his brother-in-law, Binnu had killed Lekhram. 20. In cross-examination this witness stated that in his presence Ashok had stated nothing before the Gram Panchayat as he had reached late. 21. Banwari (P.W.5) stated that Lekhram was his son-in-law. He had come to village to leave his wife. He further stated that he was informed by Thawaria that dead body of his son-in-law was lying at Majari railway line. He gave money to Thawaria and asked him to call parents of Lekhram. This witness further stated that Thawaria had informed parents of Lekhram on phone. He further stated that Gram Panchayat was convened, in which Ashok admitted that he along with Raju and Binnu had caused murder of Lekhram. 22. In cross-examination this witness admitted that in the Gram Panchayat Raju and Binnu were not present. He further admitted that he had not informed railway police that his son-in-law Lekhram had a fight with Raju and Ashok. He had also not informed railway police that his sister-in-law Santosh had brought his son-in-law to his house. 22. In cross-examination this witness admitted that in the Gram Panchayat Raju and Binnu were not present. He further admitted that he had not informed railway police that his son-in-law Lekhram had a fight with Raju and Ashok. He had also not informed railway police that his sister-in-law Santosh had brought his son-in-law to his house. He further admitted that it was not known to him that in the night Lekhram had returned and slept at the house of Smt. Anop. 23. Ram Niwas (P.W.6) stated that a Gram Panchayat was convened. Before the said Gram Panchayat, Ashok admitted that after taking liquor, he had a fight with Lekhram, and he gave beating to him, and killed Lekhram, and threw his body on the Majari Railway line. This witness was declared hostile. 24. Leelaram (P.W.8) father of the deceased stated that he had advanced Rs. 10,000/- to Thawaria and asked his son that while returning, he should recover the loan amount from Thawaria. He further stated that Sarpanch of his village received a phone that Leelaram had died due to running over of the train. After receiving the news, he thought of his son and searched for him along with his nephew Kallu. He further stated that after his son was cremated, a Panchayat was convened where Ashok, Raju and Thawaria admitted that they had lifted Lekhram from the house of Smt. Anop (P.W.1), and had killed him in the fields by using a khokari and thereafter, had thrown his dead body on the railway station. He further stated that the Panchayat was attended by thousand of persons. Panchayat was convened at 10-11 A.M. and had continued for three hours. 25. Santosh (P.W.9) stated that Lekhram had come to leave his wife in the Village. From Kherthal, she was returning to her Village. In the evening at about 5.00-5.30 P.M. Lekhram met her. He informed her that his train had already left, and he will go to his Village in the morning. Lekhram accompanied her to the Village. On the way, on road, Raju and Ashok had given beating to Lekhram and his father Thawaria was also standing there. Fight had taken place due to dispute over the money. From there, Lekhram had gone to the house of Banwari. Next day, she learnt that the dead body of Lekhram was found on the Majari Railway station. On the way, on road, Raju and Ashok had given beating to Lekhram and his father Thawaria was also standing there. Fight had taken place due to dispute over the money. From there, Lekhram had gone to the house of Banwari. Next day, she learnt that the dead body of Lekhram was found on the Majari Railway station. Thereafter, panchayat was convened in which Ashok, Raju and Binnu admitted their guilt. 26. In cross-examination this witness admitted that Banwari and her husband are real brothers. She further stated that in her presence, Ashok and Raju had given fist and kick blows to Lekhram. She further stated that she informed about this incident to her husband, Budhram on the same day. She had also relayed this information to Banwari (P.W.5). She further stated that on 29th July, 2002 Lekhram was cremated. On 30th July, 2002 the Gram Panchayat was convened in Manka which was attended by her and Smt. Anop. Suman had not attended the panchayat. She admitted that she had not informed the Panchayat regarding the incident earlier to the death of Lekhram. 27. Suman (P.W.10), wife of the deceased, stated that deceased had left her house in the evening. Her aunt Santosh had met her on the way and she along with Lekhram returned to the Village. Her husband had demanded money from Ashok, Raju and Binnu. They gave beating to Lekhram. Later, her husband after taking meals had slept in front of the house of her bhabi, Smt. Anop. Next day, Thawaria informed Smt. Anop that Lekhram had died. The dead body of her husband was found near the railway line. Thereafter, she had gone to the house of her in-laws where Lekhram was cremated. She admitted in the cross-examination that Ashok and Raju had not given beating to Lekhram in her presence. 28. Lalaram (P.W.12) stated that he had received a telephonic call that a dead body of Leelaram has been found. He gave information to the house of Lekhram. His wife informed that Leelram had gone to graze the cattle, but her son had gone to Manka. When Leelaram came, then she along with him, Chaggan, Gajji, Puran, Gokul, Mana, Pooniya and Suresh had gone to Village Manka. They had gone to house of Thawaria, then along with Thawaria, they had gone to hospital. They had seen the dead body. When Leelaram came, then she along with him, Chaggan, Gajji, Puran, Gokul, Mana, Pooniya and Suresh had gone to Village Manka. They had gone to house of Thawaria, then along with Thawaria, they had gone to hospital. They had seen the dead body. Doctor told them that Lekhram was killed by somebody and it is not a case of railway accident. Thereafter, the Gram Panchayat was convened; all the accused admitted that they had killed Lekhram with a dhariya. 29. In cross-examination, this witness admitted that Leelram is son of his tau. He further admitted that the dead body was cremated on 30th July, 2002. Panchayat was attended by Suman, Smt. Anop and Santosh. 30. Rohitash (P.W.13) stated that after performance of the Tiya ceremony, they all had gone to village Manka where the panchayat was convened. Thawaria admitted that Lekhram was killed by him along with Ashok, Binnu and Raju. Puran (P.W.14) stated that after the dead body was cremated, the tiya ceremony of the deceased was performed. He had gone to Village Manka where a lady informed that Lekhram was killed by Raju son of Thawaria. Then the Panchayat was called where Smt. Anop informed that Lekhram was killed by Raju son of Thawaria, and another person. He further admitted in the Gram Panchayat Smt. Anop, Sanotsh and Smt. Suman were present. 31. Gajji (P.W.15) stated that a Panchayat was held where Smt. Anop stated that Raju and Ashok had taken Lekhram. In the gram panchayat, Raju admitted that he had killed Lekhram, then, Ashok told that he had killed Lekhram along with Binnu, but Binnu was not present in the panchayat. He further stated that Thawaria had taken Rs. 12,000/- for performance of marriage of Lekhram. 32. Chaggan Lal (P.W.16) stated that Gram Panchayat was held. Thawaria refused his involvement, whereas Ashok stated he had killed deceased along with his brother Raju and Binnu. 33. Kallu (P.W.17) has not supported the prosecution case. 34. We need not notice the statements of the police Officials who had investigated the case, or proved link evidence, or prepared the site plan, or attested memo of recovery. 35. However, it will be necessary to note, testimony of Dr. Ranvijay Yadav (P.W.11), who had conducted autopsy on the dead body of deceased Lekhram. This witness found three injuries on person of Lekhram. 35. However, it will be necessary to note, testimony of Dr. Ranvijay Yadav (P.W.11), who had conducted autopsy on the dead body of deceased Lekhram. This witness found three injuries on person of Lekhram. Injury No.1 was a lacerated wound having dimesion of 6x3 Cm. Skull deep. Brain was coming out. Injury No.2 was a lacerated wound on the right elbow having dimension of 2x2 CM, and injury No.3 was a fracture of right elbow. Ribs of the chest and other parts of the body were normal. According to this witness, cause of death was due to excessive bleeding. A perusal of above injuries reveal that there was one injury on the head, due to which brain was coming out. That no crush injuries were present on the dead body. Ribs of the chest were intact. Therefore, the injuries present rule out the fact that the deceased was run over by the train. Had it been case of train running over the body, same would have mutilated the dead body and there would have presence of crush injuries. Thus, it is apparent that deceased was murdered and thereafter, his dead body was thrown at the railway lines. 36. Mr. Biri Singh Sinsinwar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, Ashok, and acquitted accused-respondents in the State Appeal, has vehemently urged that we should discard the evidence of extra-judicial confession as the same is not only unnatural, improbable, but is accompanied by suspicious circumstances. It has been further contended that long delay on the part of the witnesses to inform the police and contradictions emerging in the evidence, make evidence of extra-judicial confession untrustworthy. 37. It is further submitted that Smt. Anop (P.W.1) because of her conduct, is a made-up witness, of having last seen the deceased with the accused and her evidence being unreliable should not be believed. 38. Mr. N.S. Dhakar, the learned Public Prosecutor, has submitted that the witnesses appearing before the court are illiterate, rustic villagers and while appreciating their evidence, we should not be swayed by minor contradictions in their evidence. 39. We shall first take-up evidence of last seen adduced by the prosecution. 40. To prove evidence of deceased last seen with accused, the prosecution relied upon the solitary witness, Smt. Anop (P.W.1). This witness has not seen Thawaria, Raju and Binnu with the deceased. 39. We shall first take-up evidence of last seen adduced by the prosecution. 40. To prove evidence of deceased last seen with accused, the prosecution relied upon the solitary witness, Smt. Anop (P.W.1). This witness has not seen Thawaria, Raju and Binnu with the deceased. Therefore, she has only deposed against Ashok, the convicted appellant. Deceased Lekhram had left his house on 27.7.2002. His dead body was found on the Railway line on 29.7.2002. Postmortem was conducted on 30.7.2002 and on the same day, the dead body was cremated. It is the case of the complainant Leelaram (P.W.8) that after cremation, he had gone to Village Manak where his son was married and had gone to drop his wife. There Smt. Anop had disclosed to the witness that the deceased was last taken by Thawaria, Ashok, Raju and Binnu after he was given beating. This fact was specifically mentioned in the FIR. It is to be noted that the FIR was lodged on 4.8.2002. Smt. Anop had also relayed information to the father of the deceased that the deceased had been killed by all the above four persons after taking him into the fields. This witness specifically stated that she learnt about the death of Lekhram on 29.7.2002. She had gone to the spot. She had also attended the post-mortem. As to why she had not informed the police which was present at the time of post-mortem, and to the father of Lekhram, or to other relatives, there is a complete silence on the part of the witness and no satisfactory explanation is forthcoming. For the first time on 4.8.2002 this fact surfaced that, Smt. Anop (P.W.1) had last seen the accused, Ashok, with the deceased. July is a month of 31 days, if Anop (P.W.1) had seen the accused with the deceased on 29.7.2002 as to why everybody till 4.8.2002 was groping in the dark as to who committed the murder of Lekhram? This question goes abegging. 41. Smt. Anoop (P.W.1) has stated in the court that on 29.7.2002 at about 11.00 P.M., Ashok had taken the deceased on his cycle towards the fields. In the morning, she learnt that his dead body was found on the Railway track. This question goes abegging. 41. Smt. Anoop (P.W.1) has stated in the court that on 29.7.2002 at about 11.00 P.M., Ashok had taken the deceased on his cycle towards the fields. In the morning, she learnt that his dead body was found on the Railway track. This witness stated that she had gone to the place where the dead body was found, and she was threatened by the accused that she should not disclose anything to anybody. As to how and why the threat came to an end on 4.8.2002, again no explanation is coming forth. Complete silence on the part of the witness from 29.7.2002 till 4.8.2002 makes the testimony of this witness unreliable. Furthermore seeing the dead body, the witness ought to have raised hue and cry by saying that in her presence the deceased was taken by the accused. Had she been privy to this fact, she would not have remained silent. Therefore, the entire conduct of the witness is improbable. Thus, there is force in the argument raised by Mr. Biri Singh, Senior Advocate, that Smt. Anop (P.W.1) is a made-up witness being relation of the deceased. 42. Having ruled out the evidence of last seen from consideration, now we shall examine the evidence of extra-judicial confession. 43. Case of the prosecution is that on 3.8.2002 a Panchayat was held in which Ashok made a confession that murder was committed by him along with Raju and Binnu. We find that regarding the place of occurrence, the weapon used, the day on which the confession was made, as to who committed murder and who were present in the Gram Panchayat, and who made the confession, the witnesses have made contradictory statements and the same cannot be reconciled. 44. Let us first examine contradiction in the evidence of the witnesses regarding weapon. 45. Leelaram (P.W.8) has deposed in the court that Ashok, Raju and Thawaria admitted that they had killed Lekhram in the field by causing injuries with a Khukhari. Lalaram (P.W.12) stated that in the Gram Panchayat all the accused admitted that they had killed Lekhram with a Dharia. Khukhari will cause a penetrating injury or a clean cut incised injury, whereas Dharia will also cause incised injury. But the Doctor who had conducted autopsy had found two lacerated injuries on the dead body. The lacerated injury is caused with a blunt weapon. Khukhari will cause a penetrating injury or a clean cut incised injury, whereas Dharia will also cause incised injury. But the Doctor who had conducted autopsy had found two lacerated injuries on the dead body. The lacerated injury is caused with a blunt weapon. So not only the witnesses have contradicted themselves, as to by which weapon injuries were caused, but medical evidence also contradicts their version. 46. Now, let us examine the contradictions regarding who made the extra-judicial confession and also as to who had committed murder. 47. Prakash (P.W.3) stated in the court that Ashok admitted his guilt before the Panchayat and stated that murder was committed by him along with his brother and brother-in-law. Amar Singh (P.W.4) in his examination-in-chief stated that before the Panchayat, Ashok had admitted that he along with his brother, Raju, and brother-in-law, Binnu, had committed murder of Lekhram. In cross-examination this witness states that before the Panchayat, Thawaria was also present, but Binnu and Raju were not present before the Panchayat and in his presence, Ashok had stated nothing as he had reached late. Banwari (P.W.5) also stated that Ashok stated that he along with his brother and brother-in-law had committed murder. Whereas Ramniwas (P.W.6) stated that Ashok stated that only he had committed murder. Contrary to all this, Leelaram (P.W.8) had deposed that before the Gram Panchayat, Ashok, Raju and Thawaria admitted that they had committed the murder. Smt. Santosh (P.W.9) says otherwise. She stated that in the Gram Panchayat, Ashok, Raju and Minnu all three admitted guilt. Lalaram (P.W.12) states that in the Panchayat all the four accused (Ashok, Thawaria, Raju and Binnu) admitted their guilt. Rohitash (P.W.13) stated that only Thawaria stated that he along with Ashok, Raju and Binnu had committed the murder. Pooran (P.W.14) stated that in the Gram Panchayat, Raju had admitted that he committed the murder. Gajji Ram (P.W.15) in the court stated that in Panchayat, Raju had admitted that he committed the murder of Lekhram, then Ashok stated that he had committed murder along with Raju and Binnu. Chhaganlal (P.W.16) stated that Ashok had admitted that he had caused murder. Thus, the witnesses regarding who made the extra-judicial confession and who caused murder, are discrepant. 48. Leelaram (P.W.8) in the FIR has stated that Panchayat was held on 3.8.2002, whereas Smt. Santosh (P.W.9) stated that Panchayat was held in Village Manaka on 30.7.2002. Chhaganlal (P.W.16) stated that Ashok had admitted that he had caused murder. Thus, the witnesses regarding who made the extra-judicial confession and who caused murder, are discrepant. 48. Leelaram (P.W.8) in the FIR has stated that Panchayat was held on 3.8.2002, whereas Smt. Santosh (P.W.9) stated that Panchayat was held in Village Manaka on 30.7.2002. Other witnesses have not deposed regarding the date of the Panchayat. 49. Now leaving aside contradictions, let us examine the conduct of the witnesses. Banwari (P.W.5) stated that in the morning he came to know that his son-in-law has been murdered. He had not relayed any information to the parents of his son-in-law. Rather in court this witness has stated that he handed over Rs. 100/- to Thawaria and asked him to call the parents of the deceased. This witness further stated that Thawaria, instead of going, had conveyed this information on telephone. It is admitted case of Santosh and Smt. Anop that they had relayed information to Banwari regarding beating given to the deceased by Ashok and others (which included Thawaria) in presence of Thawaria, then as to why Banwari had given Rs. 100/- to Thawaria to go to the parents of the deceased, no reasonable explanation is coming forth to explain the conduct of the witness. It is not a natural behaviour of the person whose son-in-law has been murdered. 50. It is also case of Leelaram (P.W.8) in the FIR that Thawaria had made telephonic call regarding murder and in Court this witness has deposed that the Gram Panchayat was also convened by Thawaria. This is not a conduct of a guilty man. 51. Smt. Anoop (P.W.1), Santosh (P.W.9) and Suman (P.W.10) say that deceased was given beating by Ashok, Raju and Binnu in presence of Thawaria. Some witnesses say that this fact was told to Banwari (P.W.5). Some say otherwise. Be that as it may, the fact remains that this fact had not seen light of the day till 4th of August, 2002. Therefore, we find merit in the contention raised by Mr. Biri Singh that since extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence, we should look for corroboration. Taking contradictions emerging in the prosecution evidence, we are of the view that at least the investigating agency should have made some efforts to recover the weapon of offence, or to establish the place of murder. Biri Singh that since extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence, we should look for corroboration. Taking contradictions emerging in the prosecution evidence, we are of the view that at least the investigating agency should have made some efforts to recover the weapon of offence, or to establish the place of murder. Since it was known to the investigating agency that the murder was allegedly committed in the field, it was incumbent upon the Investigating Officer to find the field and to look for the spot to gather blood stained earth, or other evidence regarding struggle between the accused and the deceased. Thus, to the extra-judicial confession which is contradictory on material point, no corroboration is coming forth. Thus, we are of the view that it is highly unsafe to rely on the extra-judicial confession made by the accused. Hence, we discard this evidence too. Once we have discarded Smt. Anop (P.W.1) witness to the last seen, and rule out the extra-judicial confession from the consideration, nothing survives in the State appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. 52. For the reasons given by us above, we also accept the appeal preferred by the convicted accused, Ashok. 53. Consequently, we dismiss the D.B. Criminal Appeal No.515/2006 preferred by the State of Rajasthan and allow the D.B. Criminal Appeal No.95/2006 preferred by the accused-appellant, Ashok. We set aside the judgment of conviction pronounced and the sentence awarded by the trial court and acquit Ashok of the charges. He shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. 54. Keeping, however, in view the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C, the appellant, namely Ashok, is directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount, before the trial court. The bonds so furnished shall be effective for a period of six months. The bonds shall contain an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the judgment or on grant of leave, the appellant, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon'ble Apex Court.Appeal Of Accused Allowed and Appeal Of State Dismissed. *******