JUDGMENT : Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J. This is an appeal against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, First Court at Krishnagar, District: Nadia in Sessions Trial No. II of August, 2001/ Sessions Case No. 21 of July, 2001. 2. The prosecution alleged that on April 15, 1999, one Netai Pada Sarkar, Prosecution Witness No. 1, lodged a written compliant with the Officer-In Charge of the Chakdah Police Station that he noticed a naked beheaded body of an unknown young man of about 30/32 years of age floating in the "Pacha Pukur" at Uttar Ghosh Para. 3. Pursuant to such written complaint, Chakdah Police Station Case No. 34 of 1999 dated April 15, 1999 under Sections 302/201 was started. 4. After investigation the prosecution submitted charge-sheet. It was alleged that the accused had an illicit relation with the deceased, Krishnapada Sadhukhan. When such relationship was exposed to the family members of the accused, she was driven out from the house. She started living as a tenant at Narendranagar in the house of Haripada Sarkar. In the said house the deceased and the said accused used to meet frequently and had physical union. On April 14, 1999 the said deceased, Krishnapada, allegedly visited the house of the accused when they had physical union. The accused demanded repayment of loan of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only, which was advanced by her to the deceased. But, Krishnapada refused to pay the same. After the physical union when Krishnapada was lying on the bed, the accused allegedly chopped his head from the neck. On that very day she threw the beheaded body in a nearby pond and, also, threw the head in another pond after keeping the said head along with the wearing apparels of the deceased and some brickbats in a nylon bag. 5. The prosecution produced 16 witnesses. But, none of them was eye witness. 6. Nevertheless, the learned judge found the accused guilty of the offence solely relying upon the alleged confessional statement of the accused/appellant made before the learned Magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 7. We have considered the evidence of the learned Magistrate, who recorded such statement of the accused. He was asked by the learned trial judge as to whether the accused was kept in segregation for her reflection for making such statement. 7. We have considered the evidence of the learned Magistrate, who recorded such statement of the accused. He was asked by the learned trial judge as to whether the accused was kept in segregation for her reflection for making such statement. We regret to say that the answers were evasive. 8. The learned Magistrate stated that she was kept in a vacant Ejlas for sometime for reflection, as there was no female lock up in the Court compound at the relevant point of time. 9. We are of the opinion that the learned judge was not justified in holding the accused guilty of the offence merely on the basis of her statement. 10. The police produced her before the Court on April 16, 1999. She was kept in a vacant Ejlas for some time and, thereafter, the learned Magistrate recorded her statement on the same date under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 11. Confession is a very weak kind of evidence. The entire prosecution case was based on the said alleged confessional statement of the accused. There is absence of corroborative material. Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires strict and faithful compliance. The failure to observe safeguards not only impairs evidentiary value of such alleged confession, but casts a doubt on the nature and voluntariness of confession on which no reliance can be placed. There are no materials on record to explain away the procedural lapses. 12. Therefore, it was not safe for the learned trial judge to convict the accused on the basis of alleged confessional statement. 13. The Supreme Court of India in the case of Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam reported in (2011) SCC 377 took judicial notice of the fact that widespread and rampant practise in the police in India has been to use third degree methods for extracting confessions from the accused. Therefore, the Courts were cautioned in accepting the confessions made by the accused. 14. Therefore, the Courts were cautioned in accepting the confessions made by the accused. 14. The Supreme Court of India in the case of Davendra Prasad Tiwari v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in AIR 1978 SC 1544 declined to accept the alleged confessional statement by the accused as it suffered from many serious infirmities with the observations that before a confessional statement made under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could be acted upon, it must be shown to be voluntary and free from police influence. 15. From the aforementioned discussions, it is evidently clear that the requirement of Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding recording of confessional statement was not complied with. There was no finding that such confession was voluntary. The accused was not given sufficient time for reflection. Thus, such confessional statement could not have been the sole basis for conviction. 16. In the light of the totality of the aforesaid discussions, we hold that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilt of the appellant under Sections 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code. 17. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial judge and acquit the appellant of the said charges. 18. The appellant, Shrimati Bhagabati Sadhukhan, is in jail and she shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. Let the lower court's records be sent down to the court below at once. The Criminal Section is directed to deliver urgent Photostat copy of this judgment to the parties, if applied for, as earliest as possible. I agree.