Judgment : Per Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. This appeal is instituted against the judgment dated 31.10.2006 rendered by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala in S.C. No.1-J/VII/06, S.T. No.09/2006, whereby the respondent-accused (hereinafter referred to as the “accused” for convenience sake), who was charged with and tried for offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, has been acquitted. 2. Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on 4.2.2006 accused took liquor alongwith deceased Bakshish Singh in village Keherian. Altercation took place between them. He hit Bakshish Singh with boulder. Bakshish Singh suffered injury. He died. Accused left the spot. He met Dineshwar Singh and one other person Jagdeep Singh, who had also taken liquor at about 6.30 P.M. near Keherian Talab. He told Dineshwar Singh that he had quarrel with deceased. He hit deceased with stone. He asked Dineshwar Singh to accompany him to see if the deceased has gone home or not. However, Dineshwar Singh refused to accompany him. Accused, who was carrying amount of Rs.1350/- with him, handed it over to Dineshwar Singh. Thereafter, accused left the place. The dead body was noticed by the people. The matter was reported to the police. Inquest report was prepared. The post-mortem was also conducted. It was found during the course of investigation that accused has hit the deceased with stone. Accused made disclosure statement. Purse of deceased was recovered from Nallah. According to the prosecution, accused had made extra-judicial confession to Dineshwar Singh. The investigation was completed and the challan was put up in the court after completing all the codal formalities. 3. Prosecution has examined number of witnesses to prove its case against the accused. Statement of the accused was also recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He pleaded not guilty. Learned trial court acquitted the accused on 31.10.2006. Hence, the present appeal. 4. Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused. 5. Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra has supported the judgment dated 31.10.2006. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record meticulously. 7. PW-1 Neelam has testified that on 4.2.2006, Mundan ceremony was being celebrated in village Lahru in the house of Sheshpal. She participated in the same. She was returning to her house. 5. Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra has supported the judgment dated 31.10.2006. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record meticulously. 7. PW-1 Neelam has testified that on 4.2.2006, Mundan ceremony was being celebrated in village Lahru in the house of Sheshpal. She participated in the same. She was returning to her house. She noticed a person near ‘berry’ tree bending on his knees. Blood was oozing out from his head. She noticed blood on the stone. Two polythene bags were found near the spot. She found him to be Bakshish Singh of village Lahru. She returned and informed Vinod. Thereafter, police came on the spot and her statement Ex.PW-1/A was recorded. 8. PW-2 Madan Singh has testified that on 4.2.2006 police had come in village Lahru. The dead body of deceased Bakshish Singh was lying near Keherian. Police prepared seizure memo Ex.PW-2/A. Police also prepared inquest reports Ex.PW-2/B and Ex.PW-2/C. Blood stained soil was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW-2/D. Blood stained stone was also taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW-2/F. Human hair were also found on the blood stained stone. It was sealed and taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW-2/G. A ball pen was also recovered and taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW-2/H. According to him, no statement was made by the accused to the police in his presence. He was declared hostile. He was cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor. In his cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor, he has denied the suggestion that statement was made by the accused. He has denied portion ‘A’ to ‘A’ of his statement marked as mark ‘A’. He has denied the suggestion that the accused has led the police to Khuiya Nallah and got recovered a bag. Volunteered that the bag was lying in the Khuiya Nallah. He has denied portion ‘B’ to ‘B’ of his statement marked as mark ‘A’. He has admitted that purse; photo and identity card were packed into a parcel and sealed with seal ‘N’. Seal was handed over to Surinder Pradhan after its use. Sample seal was Ex.PW-2/J. He has admitted that Dineshwar handed over Rs. 1350/- at the Police Station which were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW-2/K. Seizure memo pertained to recovery of purse and photographs of mother of deceased and paper pieces vide Ex.PW-2/L. Fard mark ‘B’ bore his signatures. Seal was handed over to Surinder Pradhan after its use. Sample seal was Ex.PW-2/J. He has admitted that Dineshwar handed over Rs. 1350/- at the Police Station which were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW-2/K. Seizure memo pertained to recovery of purse and photographs of mother of deceased and paper pieces vide Ex.PW-2/L. Fard mark ‘B’ bore his signatures. In his cross-examination, he has admitted categorically that when he reached the spot, Pradhan and other villagers had already reached there. He has also admitted that the police had told that purse, photo, currency notes of Rs.40/-, a comb etc. were recovered from the pocket of deceased. 9. PW Chaman and Raghubansh Singh were given up by the prosecution. 10. PW-3 Surinder Kumar has testified that he was Pradhan of Gram Panchayat since 2005. He was associated in the investigation by the police on 5.2.2006. Police has taken into possession shoes of the accused. They were smeared with blood. The shoes were taken into possession. Seizure memo Ex.PW-3/A was prepared regarding taking into possession of the shoes. Seizure memo Ex.PW-3/B regarding taking into possession trousers was also prepared. According to him, on 9.2.2006, he alongwith Madan Singh had gone to the Police Station. Accused had made disclosure statement Ex.PW-3/A that he had thrown the purse of deceased into Nullah. Accused led the police to Nallah at village Keherian. He did not remember the name of the Nallah. He took out a purse Ex.P-3 from bushes. Purse contained one photo of mother of deceased, some chit on which telephone numbers were written. 11. PW-4 Dineshwar alias Chhuna has testified that on 4.2.2006 at 4.00 P.M., he went to the house of one Bhutu. He alongwith Bhutu went towards Keherian Talab after having tea. They took illicit liquor for Rs.10/-. They went to Keherian Talab after taking illicit liquor. His cousin Jagdish came there on the motorcycle and told that he has to go to search his tractor on the river side. He was sitting alongwith Bhutu near Keherian Talab and at the same time the accused Vinder came on the spot. He had taken liquor. He took him to the side. He told him that he had quarreled with deceased Bakshish Singh. He hit Bakshish Singh with a stone and blood had fallen on his pants. He handed over Rs. 1350/-. He was sitting alongwith Bhutu near Keherian Talab and at the same time the accused Vinder came on the spot. He had taken liquor. He took him to the side. He told him that he had quarreled with deceased Bakshish Singh. He hit Bakshish Singh with a stone and blood had fallen on his pants. He handed over Rs. 1350/-. He has changed his clothes as blood had fallen on it. When they were returning home, accused asked him to go to see Bakshish Singh whether he has gone to home. He told him that he would not accompany him since he was not well. He had also made statement before the Judicial Magistrate, Jawali. He has put his signatures on his statement Ex.PW-4/A. According to him, he was taken to the police on 5.2.2006 at 1.00 P.M. About 20-25 persons of the village met him since the evening of 4th February. He disclosed nothing to any one. He has admitted that he was not having cordial relations with accused. He has admitted about the statement made before the Addl. C.J.M on 7.2.2006. According to him, he was kept in the Police Station for about 5-6 hours. He left the Police Station on 5th February at about 8.00 P.M. He was told by the police that either to make a statement or get ready to be impleaded as accused. He was pressurized by the police to tell the truth. He has admitted that he cannot reproduce the exact word spoken by the accused. He has also admitted that on that day he was heavily drunk and was under the influence of liquor. He was threatened by the police. He has also deposed that his statement was recorded by the police prior to making his statement before the Magistrate on the same day. He has admitted that he was facing trial under the Excise Act and Motor Vehicles Accident. 12. PW-5 Nirmala Devi is wife of deceased. According to her, Bakshish Singh was murdered on 4.2.2006. Her husband had left the house at about 11.00 A.M. to collect pension from Jawali. Her husband used to keep a purse for keeping money. He also used to keep photo of his mother. She identified the purse Ex.P-3. She also identified photograph Ex.P-4 to be the mother of deceased. 13. PW-7 Dr. Ashutosh Joshi has deposed that he alongwith Dr. Her husband used to keep a purse for keeping money. He also used to keep photo of his mother. She identified the purse Ex.P-3. She also identified photograph Ex.P-4 to be the mother of deceased. 13. PW-7 Dr. Ashutosh Joshi has deposed that he alongwith Dr. S.D. Minhas conducted post-mortem of deceased Bakshish Singh on 5.2.2006 at 12.30 P.M. The following injuries were noticed on the person of deceased: Lying supine moderately built. Mud stains all over the face alongwith both ears. Mud stains on the left hand along with blood stains. Mud is present in layers alongwith small pieces of grass. Postmortem lividity present on the back and upper chest. Rigor mortis present and fixed. Lacerated wound on the posterior part of left parietal bone 7x2cms with fresh bleeding. Cripetus present. Bone fragment starting from left parietal to occipital region present alongwith fracture of underlying bones. On opening the skull massive subdural bleeding present. Viscera was preserved and sent for chemical examination and opinion was reserved till the opinion of chemical examiner. 14. According to his opinion, cause of death was head injury accompanied by fracture of the parietal and occipital wounds. All these injuries were ante mortem in nature and were sufficient to cause death. The duration between injury and death could be instantaneous to half an hour. He has issued postmortem report Ex.PW-7/A signed by him and Dr. S.D. Minhas. 15. PW-8 Tarsen Singh has deposed that he has taken photographs Ex.PW-8/A-1 to Ex.PW-8/A-11 and negatives of which are Ex.PW-8/A-12 to Ex.PW-8/A-22. He has taken the snaps at Lahru but did not know the name of Nallah. The photographs are Ex.PW-8/A-23 to Ex.PW-8/A-24 and negatives of which are Ex .PW-8/A-25 to Ex.PW-8/A-26. 16. PW-11 Taneshwar Thakur has testified that on 5.2.2006 at about 8.30 A.M. he reached the spot. He started investigation. Stone smeared with blood and human hair was found lying near the spot. These were taken into possession. He got the statement of Dineshwar recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Blood was found on the shoes of accused. The shoes were also taken into possession. The trousers were also taken into possession. On 9.2.2006, accused made a disclosure statement on the basis of which purse Ex.P-3 was recovered. Photographs Ex.PW-8/A-23 and Ex.PW-8/A-24 were taken. He got the statement of Dineshwar recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Blood was found on the shoes of accused. The shoes were also taken into possession. The trousers were also taken into possession. On 9.2.2006, accused made a disclosure statement on the basis of which purse Ex.P-3 was recovered. Photographs Ex.PW-8/A-23 and Ex.PW-8/A-24 were taken. He has admitted in his cross-examination that the accused was called to the Police Station on suspicion on 5.2.2006. He has also admitted that Dineshwar was also called to the Police Station on suspicion. He has denied the suggestion that Dineshwar was kept in the Police Station on 5.2.2006 and 6.2.2006 for more than six hours. He also refuted the suggestion that statement of Dineshwar was got recorded before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure under pressure. He has admitted that no witness has seen the accused and deceased together on 4.2.2006. 17. PW-1 Neelam belongs to village Tehrian. According to her, she had gone to attend the Mundan ceremony at village Lahru in the house of Sheshpal. When she returned, she noticed a person bending down on his knees. She noticed that blood was oozing out from his head. Blood was lying there on the stone. Stone was identified by her. She found him to be Bakshish Singh. It is intriguing to note that PW-1 Neelam identified the dead body of Bakshish Singh of village Lahru , though she belongs to village Tehrian. She did not know Baskhsish Singh earlier. PW-2 Madan Singh has been declared hostile. He has denied the case of prosecution that accused made disclosure statement, which led to recovery of purse and other articles. He has denied the suggestion that the statement was made by the accused in his presence. According to him, portion ‘A’ to ‘A’ of statement mark ‘A’ was wrong. According to him, it was wrong that accused had led the police to Khuiya Nallah and got recovered a bag. In his cross-examination, he has categorically deposed that when he reached on the spot, Pradhan and other villagers had already reached there. He has admitted that the police had told that purse, photo, currency notes of Rs.40/-, a comb etc. were recovered from the pocket of deceased. In his cross-examination, he has categorically deposed that when he reached on the spot, Pradhan and other villagers had already reached there. He has admitted that the police had told that purse, photo, currency notes of Rs.40/-, a comb etc. were recovered from the pocket of deceased. When the recoveries had already been made, there was no occasion to the accused to make disclosure statement. PW-3 Surinder Kumar has deposed that on 9.2.2006, he alongwith Madan Singh had gone to the Police Station. According to him, accused had made disclosure statement Ex.PW-3/A that he had thrown the purse of deceased into Nallah and can get it recovered. Accused led the police to Nallah at village Keherian. He did not remember the name of the Nallah. There is variance in the statements of PW2 Madan Singh and PW-3 Surinder Kumar, the manner in which disclosure statement was made by the accused, as noticed hereinabove. 18. PW-4 Dineshwar has got his statement recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 7.2.2006. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that he was kept in the police station for about 5-6 hours. He left the Police Station on 5th February at about 8.00 P.M. He was told by the police either to make the statement or get ready to be impleaded as accused. He was pressurized by the police to tell truth on 5th and 6th February, 2006. He has also admitted that he was heavily drunk and was under the influence of liquor. He has also admitted that if the police had not threatened him, he would not have made the statement. He has admitted that he was taken to the Police Station on 5.2.2006 at 1.00 P.M. and about 20-25 persons of the village met him since the evening of 4th February. He disclosed nothing to any one. The incident has taken place on 4.2.2006. However, he has neither told to anyone nor the police about the incident till 7.2.2006. There was no occasion for the accused to confide with PW4 Dineshwar, who as noticed by us, had no cordial relations with him. Statement of heavily drunk witness has to be scrutinized with due care and caution. It has come on record that accused and PW-4 Dineshwar were called to the Police Station on suspicion. It is also difficult to believe why accused handed over Rs. 1350/- to PW-4 Dineshwar. Statement of heavily drunk witness has to be scrutinized with due care and caution. It has come on record that accused and PW-4 Dineshwar were called to the Police Station on suspicion. It is also difficult to believe why accused handed over Rs. 1350/- to PW-4 Dineshwar. According to PW-3 Surinder Kumar and PW11 Taneshwar Thakur, shoes and trousers of the accused were smeared with blood. These articles were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga for analysis, however, no human blood was found on shoes and trousers, as per Forensic Science Laboratory Ex.PB. 19. Statement made under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate is recorded to have been exhibited as Ex.PW-4/A, but it has not been exhibited by putting exhibit on the statement and the same has remained in the challan file. 20. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lakhanpal vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1979 SC 1620 have held that it was unsafe to rely on the evidence of extra-judicial confession made to a person, who has never told about this to any one else though he met number of persons on the date of occurrence. Their Lordships have held as under: “4. So far as the first circumstance is concerned in the facts of this particular case it is not sufficient to prove conclusively that the appellant committed the murder of the deceased. According to Public Witness Bhagwandas, the father of the appellant, the sowing was stopped at 4 o'clock in the evening. In the circumstances, therefore, if the appellant would have attacked the deceased he being a young man of 17 years would have undoubtedly put up stiff resistance in order to protect himself and in all probability would have caused some injuries on the person of the appellant also. For these reasons, therefore) the mere fact that the appellant and the deceased were together in the field does not lead to the irresistible inference that the appellant must have murdered the deceased. As regards the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant before Sukhial, we are unable to believe the version given by the witness Sukhial. While being examined as a witness in the Sessions Court he had clearly stated that no confession was made before him. As regards the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant before Sukhial, we are unable to believe the version given by the witness Sukhial. While being examined as a witness in the Sessions Court he had clearly stated that no confession was made before him. His attention was however drawn to his statement made by him before the committing Magistrate where he had admitted that he saw the appellant running and on being questioned the appellant told him that he had committed a mistake and had killed his brother due to a quarrel. In cross-examination the witness admitted that he did not narrate this story of the murder to anybody. He made the disclosure for the first time when he was called to the police station. The witness met a number of persons on that day but he did not mention the factum of the confession to any one of them. Secondly the evidence shows that he was not known to the appellant and therefore we find it difficult to believe that the appellant would make a confession to a person who was not known to him at all. For these reasons, therefore, we find it wholly unsafe to accept the evidence of the extra-judicial confession of the appellant to Public Witness Sukhial. Another important circumstance which negatives the prosecution case is that no motive whatsoever for the appellant to kill his brother has been either alleged or proved. Further the deceased appears to have received as many as 12 incised wounds on various parts of the body and this could not have beep done by the appellant alone unless he was accompanied by other friends. We are clearly of the view that the prosecution has not proved the case against the appellant beyond reason- able doubt. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of the High court and acquit the appellant of the charges framed against him. The appellant may now be released forthwith.” 21. In the case in hand, the incident has taken place on 4.2.2006, but he has not disclosed to any one for number of days though he met number of people, including co-villagers. 22. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Thimma Vs. The appellant may now be released forthwith.” 21. In the case in hand, the incident has taken place on 4.2.2006, but he has not disclosed to any one for number of days though he met number of people, including co-villagers. 22. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Thimma Vs. The State of Mysore, AIR 1971 SC 1871 have held that an extra judicial confession made to one who is not a person in authority and which is free from any suspicion as to its voluntary character and has also a ring of truth in it is admissible in evidence against the accused and deserves to be acted upon. But in the process of proof of a confession the Court must be satisfied that it is voluntary, it does not appear to be the result of inducement, threat or promise as contemplated by the section and the surrounding circumstances do not indicate that it is inspired by some improper or collateral consideration suggesting that it may not be true. The Court must scrutinize all the relevant factors, such as, the person to whom the confession was made, the time and place of making it, the circumstances in which it was made and finally the actual words. Their Lordships have held as under: “9. The trial court was not favourably impressed by the testimony of Ganga (P.W. 4) though it felt convinced that on the day following the disappearance of the deceased he had knowledge both of the commission of the offence and of the place where the dead body was lying. That court did not rely _on his testimony in regard to the extra-judicial confession because it was considered incredible. The High Court on appeal disagreed with the trial court in its appreciation of the evidence of P.W. 4. According to the High Court the evidence of P.W. 4 was corroborated by the evidence of P.W. 13 and P.W. 25. The extra-judicial confession was, therefore, held to be admissible and trust Worthy. Before us it was contended, that the extrajudicial confession said to have "been made to P.W. 4 is inadmissible and in any event without corroboration in material particulars from independent source it is unsafe to act upon it. The extra-judicial confession was, therefore, held to be admissible and trust Worthy. Before us it was contended, that the extrajudicial confession said to have "been made to P.W. 4 is inadmissible and in any event without corroboration in material particulars from independent source it is unsafe to act upon it. It was emphasised that P.W. 4 was at one stage of the investigation suspected of complicity in this murder and, therefore, he should be treated no better than an accomplice. In our opinion, this criticism is not justified. An unambiguous confession, if admissible in evidence, and free from suspicion suggesting its falsity, is a valuable piece of evidence which possesses a high probative force because it emanates directly from the person committing the offence. But in the process of proof of an alleged confession the court has to be satisfied that, it is voluntary, it does not appear to be the result of inducement, threat or promise as contemplated by s. 24, Indian Evidence Act and the surrounding circumstances do not indicate that it is inspired by some improperly or collateral consideration suggesting that it may not be true. For this purpose, the court must scrutinise all the relevant factors, such as, the person to whom the confession is made, the time and place of making it, the circumstances in which it is made and finally the actual words. In the case in hand it is quite clear that P.W. 4 is not a person in authority. There can thus be noquestion of any inducement, threat or promise rendering the confession irrelevant. Nor has any cogent reason' been suggested why the appellant should have made an untrue confession to P.W. 4 within 24 hours of the disappearance of the deceased. On the other hand, the appellant appears to have been impelled by some inner urge to take the assistance of P.W. 4, his real nephew, to go to the place of occurrence to see as to what had happened to the dead body of his victim. Such behaviour cannot be considered unnatural. The confession appears to us to be free from any taint which would throw suspicion on its voluntary character and it has a ring of truth in it. Such behaviour cannot be considered unnatural. The confession appears to us to be free from any taint which would throw suspicion on its voluntary character and it has a ring of truth in it. The fact that during the investigation P.W. 4 was suspected of being involved in the murder would also not cast any doubt on the voluntary character of the confession or on its true nature because it is the knowledge of P.W. 4 derived from this very confession which perhaps invited suspicion on him. We do not consider this to be a cogent ground for holding that P.W. 4 had any motive to concoct the story of confession. This confession is, therefore, admissible in evidence and being true, deserves to be acted upon. The words used are quite clear and 'admit of no doubt of the appellant's guilt. And then though the evidence of P.W. 4 does not need any corroboration we find that corroboration in material particulars is forthcoming on the record. The existence of the dead body and all the other articles at the place where they were later found and the evidence of Basappa (P.W. 13) which proves the visit of the appellant and P.W. 4 to the spot on Saturday following the disappearance of the deceased furnish strong corroboration. The High Court was thus quite right in relying on the extra-judicial confession made to P.W. 4. The confessions said to have been made to P.W. 31 and to Abdul Rahman (P.W. 22) stand on a different footing. Both the courts below have not considered it safe to rely on these confessions and we do not find any sufficient reason for disagreeing with them.” 23. In the instant case, PW-4 Dineshwar Singh has admitted that he was not having cordial relations with the accused. He was heavily drunk and was under the influence of liquor. The prosecution has not explained why in these circumstances the accused would make statement before PW-4 Dineshwar Singh. He could not narrate the exact words. 24. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jagta Vs. State of Harayna, AIR 1974 SC 1545 have held that the evidence about an extra-judicial confession in the nature of things is a weak piece of evidence and if the same is lacking in probability there would be no difficulty in rejecting the same. Their Lordships have held as under: “14. State of Harayna, AIR 1974 SC 1545 have held that the evidence about an extra-judicial confession in the nature of things is a weak piece of evidence and if the same is lacking in probability there would be no difficulty in rejecting the same. Their Lordships have held as under: “14. So far as the alleged extra judicial confession of the accused is concerned, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence on Ram Singh (PW 4). After having been taken through the evidence of that witness, we find the same to be lacking in credence and devoid of any ring of truth. The police was admittedly present in the office of the co-operative society in village Farmana on the morning of January 15, 1972. We find no reason as to why the accused, instead of surrendering himself before the police, should go to the house of Ram Singh in village Farmana, blurt out a confession before him and ask him to produce the accused before the police. Nothing has been shown to us as to why the accused could not himself go and appear before the police. We have mentioned above that an attempt has been made in this case to introduce the story of the recovery of ornaments belonging to Phul Pati deceased from the accused. The attempt of the investigating agency to introduce a false story about the removal of the ornaments of the deceased and their recovery from the accused would in our opinion, also affect the credibility of the evidence regarding the extra judicial confession alleged to have been made to Ram Singh PW. The evidence about an extra judicial confession is in the nature of things a weak piece of evidence. If the same is lacking in probability as it is in the present case, there would be no difficulty in rejecting the same. We are, therefore, not prepared to place any reliance upon the evidence regarding the extra judicial confession of the accused.” 25. An extra-judicial confession stated to have been made before PW-4 Dineshwar Singh lacks probability and does not inspire confidence. 26. Division Bench of Orissa High Court in Moti Gouduni Vs. State, 1982 Cri.L.J. 2342 has held that the evidence of witnesses with regard to an extra-judicial confession must not lack plausibility and must inspire the confidence of the court before the same is accepted. 26. Division Bench of Orissa High Court in Moti Gouduni Vs. State, 1982 Cri.L.J. 2342 has held that the evidence of witnesses with regard to an extra-judicial confession must not lack plausibility and must inspire the confidence of the court before the same is accepted. Division Bench has held as under: “9. P.Ws. 2 and 3 are the witnesses who have testified about the extra-judicial confession said to have been made by the appellant before them. The evidence relating to extra-judicial confession, in the very nature of things, is a weak piece of evidence, as observed by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Bhajan Singh. The evidence of witnesses with regard to an extra-judicial confession must not lack plausibility and must inspire the confidence of the court before the same is accept ed. A Division Bench of this Court consisting of one of us, in the case of Buti alias Gunasagar behera v. State of Orissa 53 Cut LT 130 : 1982 Cri Ll 938 has held that the value of the evidence as to the extra-judicial confession like any other evidence depends upon the veracity of the witnesses to whom it is made and it is not an invariable rule that the court should not accept the evidence if not the actual words but the substance is given by the witnesses. Reliance had been placed on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of Mulk Rai v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1959 SC 902 : 1959 Cri LJ 1219 and Maghar Singh v. State of Punjab .” 27. In the instant case, an extra-judicial confession alleged to have been made before PW-4 Dineshwar Singh is not truthful. 28. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narayan Singh and others vs. State of M.P. AIR 1985 SC 1678 have held that it would depend on the nature of the circumstances, the time when the confession was made and the credibility of the witnesses who speak to such a confession. Their Lordships have held as under: “7. Apart from this there is the evidence of PWs 5 and 9 who state on oath that one of the accused admitted before them that he had murdered the deceased. Their Lordships have held as under: “7. Apart from this there is the evidence of PWs 5 and 9 who state on oath that one of the accused admitted before them that he had murdered the deceased. The learned Sessions Judge has brushed aside their evidence by presuming that their statements constituting an extra-judicial confession is a very weak type of evidence. This is a wrong view of the law. It is not open to any Court to start with a presumption that extra judicial confession is a weak type of evidence. It would depend on the nature of the circumstances, the time when the confession was made and the credibility of the witnesses who speak to such a confession in the instant case, after perusing the evidence of PWs 5 and 9 we are unable to find anything which could lead to the conclusion that these independent witnesses were not telling the truth. The evidence of these two witnesses (PWs 5 and 9) which lends support to the evidence of PW 11 was sufficient to warrant the conviction of the accused. The Sessions Judge has committed a grave error of law in analysing and appreciating the evidence of PWs 5 and 9 and brushing them aside on untenable grounds.” 29. In the case in hand, PW-4 Dineshwar Singh has also deposed in his statement that he was pressurized by the police to make a statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He was told categorically either to make a statement or get ready to be impleaded as accused in the case . He has also admitted that had the police not advanced threats to him, he would not have made the statement against the accused. 30. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Virender Kumar Yadav and Mukhtiar Yadav alias Mukho Yadav alias Raju vs. State, 1996 Cr.L.J. 231 have held that when the witnesses neither identifying dead body nor informing police or relatives of deceased about involvement of accused in alleged offence, conduct of witnesses was unnatural. Their Lordships have held as under: “23. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Virender Kumar Yadav and Mukhtiar Yadav alias Mukho Yadav alias Raju vs. State, 1996 Cr.L.J. 231 have held that when the witnesses neither identifying dead body nor informing police or relatives of deceased about involvement of accused in alleged offence, conduct of witnesses was unnatural. Their Lordships have held as under: “23. It is significant to mention that Gogan Yadav PW 6 deposed that four persons of the same village were living with him at the relevant time where the appellants were living and still they had not informed about the complicity of the appellants for the murder of Ashok to said co-villagers. He has deposed that he gave the information to Ashok's brother after one month of reaching the village. It means that he had gone to the village soon after the occurrence but had not informed Ashok's brother or father about the involvement of the appellants in the murder of Ashok. He has not given any explanation as to why he took one month to inform Ashok's brother about this matter. If he had come to Delhi, according to him about 30-40 days prior to the murder of Ashok and he had gone to the village after one month of the occurrence, it means that he was in village in middle of September 1987 but according to him, till middle of October 1987 he remained mum. It is not possible to give any credence to statement of such a witness who remains silent for such a long period when the fear of the appellants was no longer working on his mind and still he failed to inform the relations of Ashok about the death of Ashok or of the involvement of the appellants in the murder of Ashok. It is only on October 17, 1987, that Ashok's brother had come to Delhi and then identified the dead body of his brother. Ashok's brother does not say that he got the information from PW 6 or PW 7. He has named another person for getting the information about the murder of Ashok in Delhi and complicity of appellants in that murder. That witness had not been examined by the prosecution. 24. Ashok's brother does not say that he got the information from PW 6 or PW 7. He has named another person for getting the information about the murder of Ashok in Delhi and complicity of appellants in that murder. That witness had not been examined by the prosecution. 24. Similarly Rajinder Yadav PW 7 in the examination-in-chief categorically stated that he was alone when that extra-judicial confession was made by Virender-appellant but he was allowed to be cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor and then he went out to admit all the facts which had come out in the testimony of PW 6. In cross-examination he admitted that he had gone to his village after two or four days of having seen the dead body of Ashok and immediately on reaching the village had informed Ashok's father that his son had been killed. If this has been the truthful statement there could be no earthly reason as to why the dead body remained unidentified till October 17, 1987. In case this witness had given the information to Ashok's father soon after reaching the village it is not possible to believe that Ashok's father and brother would not have rushed to Delhi to identify the dead body of Ashok. So, this witness appears to be having no regard for truth. He claims to have recorded the dates September 14, 1995 and September 16, 1987, in his diary, but no such diary had been taken into possession by the police or brought by him in Court. He had stated that he remembered the dates because he had recorded them in a diary. This part of the statement also appears to be unnatural. It is pertinent to mention that Ashok's brother had given the statement to police on October 17, 1987 and in Court he does not say that either PW 6 or PW 7 had informed him about the appellants being the culprits and his having disclosed this fact to the police in his statement recorded on October 17, 1987. 28. It is pertinent to mention that Ashok's brother had given the statement to police on October 17, 1987 and in Court he does not say that either PW 6 or PW 7 had informed him about the appellants being the culprits and his having disclosed this fact to the police in his statement recorded on October 17, 1987. 28. PW 6 while referring to meeting the appellants on that day on Subhash Nagar Road, deposed that on his query from Virender-appellant as to whether he had killed Ashok and on Rajinder mentioning that Virender had taken away Ashok from his room on September 14, 1987, Virender extended the threat by uttering the words "that in case their names were mentioned, they would meet with the same treatment as was given to Ashok Yadav." In Hindi the words recorded were as follows : "YADI HAMARA NAM BOLEGA TO VOHI HAL KAR DENGE ZO ASHOK YADAV KA KIYA" He does not say that the appellant-Mukho had made any confessional statement at that time. On the other hand, PW 7, who initially had not even mentioned about his companion PW 6 on that particular day, had deposed that on reaching the Bus Stand Subhash Nagar on that day he found Virender-appellant present and on enquiring from him as to Ashok who was with him from September 14, 1987, how he had been killed. Virender threatened him and he deposed that Mukho was also present at that time and he himself was alone. When he was allowed to be cross-examined by the prosecutor, he gave additional facts by mentioning that Virender had, on his query, told that he Along with Mukho had murdered Ashok because Ashok used to come and harass them. If we peruse the testimony of these two witnesses, we find that there is lot of variation as to what appellant-virender uttered while giving the threat. There is no consistent testimony of these two witnesses as to what in substance appellant-Virender had stated. Both the witnesses do not refer to any extra-judicial confession made by Mukho, the other appellant. The words which PW 6 attributes to Virender are not even referred to in any manner whatsoever by PW 7. There is no consistent testimony of these two witnesses as to what in substance appellant-Virender had stated. Both the witnesses do not refer to any extra-judicial confession made by Mukho, the other appellant. The words which PW 6 attributes to Virender are not even referred to in any manner whatsoever by PW 7. Even though in cross-examination by the prosecutor he gave affirmative replies to almost all the questions put to him by the prosecutor but even the prosecutor had not put the same words as given by PW 6 attributable to any of the appellants. 31. We come to the conclusion that not only the prosecution has failed to prove any consistent confession made by the appellant-Virender or appellant-Mukho in the words used by them but even no consistent substance has been proved from where it can be inferred that appellants had made any confessional statement to these two witnesses. Hence, we hold that it is not proved beyond shadow of reasonable doubt that appellants had made any confessional statement to these two witnesses.” 31. PW-4 Dineshwar Singh once allegedly told by the accused that he has quarreled with Bakshish Singh and he has killed him, in normal circumstances, he would have informed the relatives of the deceased immediately. PW-4 Dineshwar Singh has admitted that he has not informed the police even telephonically. 32. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in C.K. Raveendran vs. State of Kerala, AIR 2000 SC 369 have held that when prosecution witness failed to reproduce extra-judicial confession made to him in exact words or even in the words as nearly as possible and further his statement showing that he consumed liquor alongwith accused and thereafter accused disclosed the entire incident to him, statement by accused cannot be said to be voluntary and truthful one. Their Lordships have held as under: “4. It is contended on behalf of appellant Raveendran that the circumstances relied upon by the High Court not only have not been established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, but also even if all the circumstances can be said to have been established, all of them taken together do not complete the chain and they do not unequivocally point to the guilt of the accused and exclude any hypothesis consistence with his innocence. It is not necessary for us to discuss in detail the law relating to the circumstantial evidence, suffice it to say that prosecution must prove each of the circumstances, having a definite tendency pointing towards the guilt of the accused and though each of the circumstances by itself may not be conclusive but the cumulative effect of proved circumstances must be so complete that it would exclude every other hypothesis and unequivocally point to the guilt of the accused. When we examine the circumstances said to have been established in the light of the aforesaid principle, We find sufficient force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the circumstances thus proved, do not point but unerringly to the guilt of the accused; It is in this context, the most important question is the medical evidence. The dead body of Yeshoda was found on 30th of March, 1988 and the post-mortem was conducted on 1.4.1988. The doctor PW I9, who conducted the autopsy, while issuing the post-mortem certificate Exh. Pl0, categorically stated that the exact cause of death cannot be ascribed and reserved his opinion, pending the result of chemical analysis. On getting the report of the Assistant Chemical Examiner Exh. P11, the said doctor PW19 gave a final report as per Exh. PI2, which indicated that the deceased sustained head injury, which if ante-mortem, could result in death and the injury, if ante-mortem, could be caused by hitting with stones likeM.Os.11 or 12. The said report further revealed that nobody could say that there was violence on the neck pf the deceased or not. When the doctor itself has not been able to give a definite opinion as to the injuries found on the dead body, whether could be ante-mortem or post-mortem and the dead body itself was found on 30th of March, 1988 and Yeshoda alleged to have been seen in the company of accused last on 3.3.88, it is difficult for us to sustain the conclusion of the High Court that the death of Yeshoda can only be homicidal. There is not an iota of material from which the High Court could have jumped to the aforesaid conclusion and we, therefore, have no hesitation to hold that the conclusion of the High Court that Yeshoda met a homicidal death is wholly erroneous. There is not an iota of material from which the High Court could have jumped to the aforesaid conclusion and we, therefore, have no hesitation to hold that the conclusion of the High Court that Yeshoda met a homicidal death is wholly erroneous. The extra-judicial confession as deposed by PW15 has not been relied upon by the learned Sessions Judge and High Court also came to the conclusion that it is difficult to rely upon the same, as the exact words or even the words as nearly as possible have not been reproduced by PW15. That apart, as has been stated earlier, even the evidence; of PW15 indicates that Raveendran and he went to arrack shop and consumed liquor, where-after Raveendran disclosed the entire incident and therefore, such statement cannot be said to be a voluntary and truthful one and on the other hand it is the outcome of the consumption of liquor, both by the witness as well as the accused, if at all he can be said to have made the statement. In this view of the matter, the so-called extra-judicial confession has to be excluded from the purview of consideration for bringing home the charge. The most important circumstance which can be said to have been established by the evidence of PWs 7 and 8 is that they saw Raveendran with Yeshoda on 3rd of March, 1988 in a jeep and that jeep was found to be moving around on different places on the same day, While analysing the different witnesses who deposed about seeing the jeep on 3rd of March, 1988 at different places at different point of time, the High Court itself has noticed that the witnesses do not agree with each other. so far as the time factor is concerned. That apart, the so-called evidence of PWs 10 and 11 who had deposed that at 5 P.M. on the same day, some : people came in a jeep and took tea from the Grant Hotel, is of no consequence and cannot be held to be incriminating in nature, as they never knew accused Raveendran nor had there been any earlier test identification parade and, therefore, the said evidence cannot be utilised to bring home the charge against accused Raveendran. Necessarily, therefore, the only evidence of PWs 7 and 8 is to the effect that on 3rd of Match, 1988 at 9.30 A.M., Yeshoda was seen with Raveendran in the jeep. So far as the motive is concerned, the prosecution case is rather hazy and the High Court itself has brushed aside the same on the ground that the motive is not an essential ingredient of an offence. It is no doubt true that through some witnesses, the prosecution wanted to establish that on an earlier occasion, Raveendran made an attempt to kill Yeshoda by hitting her with jeep but could not succeed and Yeshoda escaped, but that circumstance also is through the evidence of PW15, who had testified the so-called extra- judicial confession and has not been relied upon and it would be highly unsafe to rely upon the testimony, even for the alleged conduct of accused Raveendran. PW23 who was living in an adjacent house of Yeshoda at Kappad, in his evidence, made a statement that mother of Raveendran had once offered Raveendran that she would purchase a van for him, if he agrees to divorce Yeshoda but that by itself can hardly be said to be establishing a motive on the part of accused Rayeendran. In our opinion, therefore, on the materials on record, the prosecution has hot been able to establish any motive on the part of the accused Raveendran for committing the crime. In this state of affair, the so-called recovery of the wrist watch of the deceased, on the basis of statement made by accused Raveendran can hardly be said to be a clinching circumstance for coming to the conclusion that the prosecution case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt In view of our conclusion, as aforesaid, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the prosecution case has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt as against accused Raveendran and, therefore, the conviction of Raveendran of the charge under Section 302 as well 201 IPC, cannot be sustained. We accordingly, set aside the conviction and sentence of accused Raveendran and acquit him of the charges levelled against him. He be set at liberty forthwith, unless required in any other case.” 33. According to PW-4 Dineshwar Singh, he was heavily drunk and was under the influence of liquor. We accordingly, set aside the conviction and sentence of accused Raveendran and acquit him of the charges levelled against him. He be set at liberty forthwith, unless required in any other case.” 33. According to PW-4 Dineshwar Singh, he was heavily drunk and was under the influence of liquor. In view of this also, an extra-judicial confession made to him by the accused cannot be relied upon. 34. Consequently, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the accused. The view taken by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court is plausible and this Court would not interfere with the well reasoned judgment. 35. Accordingly, in view of the analysis and discussion made hereinabove, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. Bail bonds are discharged.