JUDGMENT The appellant having been convicted for commission of offence under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life by the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Keonjhar in C.T. No.19 of 2002, has preferred this appeal from Jail. 2.The prosecution case in brief is that on 21.11.2000 a written report was lodged by the informant (P.W.1) before the O.I.C., Gunupur Police Station alleging therein that on the previous day, i.e., on a Monday (20.11.2000) at about 7.00 P.M., his wife-Ahalya Nagabansa (P.W.11) sent her daughter - Shyamala (deceased), who was aged about 8 years to bring betel from the betel shop of Ghasi Mali of Brahmin Sahi. But as his daughter did not return to home, he and P.W.11 along with others searched for her in the relative house, but could not trace her out. On the following morning at about 6.30 A.M., the informant came to know from one Jamuna Nagabansa of his Sahi that a girl was lying dead in a half-constructed house situated in between Brahmin Sahi and Kachera Sahi. After hearing this, the informant and his wife (P.W.11) along with others went to the spot and found their daughter-Shyamala lying dead in the husk house in a half-constructed house. Thereafter, P.W.1 came to the police station and lodged a report stating therein that some unknown person has committed murder of his daughter and the dead body was lying in a half-constructed house. On receipt of the said report, the police registered the case. The O.I.C. investigated the matter, made inquest over the dead body of the deceased and sent the same for Post-Mortem Examination. Thereafter, collected samples of earth, blood stained earth from the spot and seized wearing apparels of the deceased. The O.I.C. also called the Scientific Officer and police sniffer dog with his Master. Ultimately, after apprehending the accused, the O.I.C. examined him and sent the material object for Chemical Examination. After receipt of the Chemical Examination report, the O.I.C. submitted charge sheet against the accused-appellant under Section 302, IPC. The plea of the appellant is one of complete denial. 3.The prosecution in order to prove the charge, examined 17 witnesses including the Doctor and two Executive Magistrates and exhibited 18 documents including Chemical Examination Report and Post-Mortem Examination Report. The defence has examined one witness and exhibited one document, i.e., report of the Dog Master. The plea of the appellant is one of complete denial. 3.The prosecution in order to prove the charge, examined 17 witnesses including the Doctor and two Executive Magistrates and exhibited 18 documents including Chemical Examination Report and Post-Mortem Examination Report. The defence has examined one witness and exhibited one document, i.e., report of the Dog Master. On completion of trial, the trial Court convicted the accused-appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 302, IPC basing upon the extra-judicial confession made before the witnesses, last-seen theory, Chemical Examination report and the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W. 15 before whom the demonstration made by the appellant was recorded. 4.Mr. S.K. Das, learned counsel for the appellant assailed the judgment of the trial Court on the following grounds; (a)Extra-judicial confession said to have been made by the accused before P.W.2 and P.W.5 is not believable, as neither they are the relations nor friends of the accused. (b)P.W.3 cannot be believed to be a witness to the last-seen theory, as he developed the story in the Court. (c)The Chemical Examination report (Ext.18) does not indicate the blood group, for which prosecution case is to viewed with this suspicion. (d)P.W.12 and P.W.15 are the Executive Magistrates before whom the accused demonstrated how he killed the deceased and the same was recorded by a video camera, which was not in accordance with law. Moreover, recording was made in the police station under coercion. (e)Besides, there are major contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses for which their evidence cannot be relied upon. 5.Mr. Zafarulla, learned Additional Standing Counsel vehemently contended that the accused made the extra-judicial confession at two different places, once before P.W.2, the father of an Advocate, when the accused went to approach his son for his bail, and second time before P.W.5, who was working in the bus stand as a Helper and known to the appellant. P.W.3 is a witness to the last-seen theory, who is a resident of that area who last saw both the appellant and deceased moving together. P.W.12 and P.W.15 are the Executive Magistrate before whom the appellant voluntarily demonstrated how he committed the crime. The Chemical Examination Report reveals that a patch human blood was detected from his half-pant and no explanation has been given by the appellant how human blood was detected from his wearing apparels. P.W.12 and P.W.15 are the Executive Magistrate before whom the appellant voluntarily demonstrated how he committed the crime. The Chemical Examination Report reveals that a patch human blood was detected from his half-pant and no explanation has been given by the appellant how human blood was detected from his wearing apparels. Therefore, there is no infirmity and illegality in the impugned judgment of the trial Court. 6.Perused the LCR. P.W.1 is the informant and father of the deceased. He lodged the F.I.R. before the O.I.C., Gunupur police station stating therein that on a Monday at about 8 P.M., his wife (P.W.11) sent his daughter (deceased), who was aged about 8 years to bring betel from the betel shop situated nearby Brahmin Sahi of Gunupur Town. As his daughter did not return to home, P.W.1 and P.W.11 went and searched their daughter along with some others including P.W.4 in the Brahmin Sahi and nearby places. Though they searched their daughter (deceased) through out the night, they could not trace her out and returned back to their house. In the early morning of the following day at about 6.00 A.M. on Tuesday, some of the Sahi people told that a dead-body of a girl was lying in the half-constructed house situated in between Brahmin Sahi and Kachera Sahi. Immediately, the informant and his wife (P.W.11) rushed there and found that their daughter (Shyamala) was lying dead on the husk inside the half-constructed house. They also found blood and foam coming out from her mouth and nostril. He also found bleeding injury on her right shoulder. Thereafter, P.W.1 requested Ramanath Kola (P.W.8) to scribe a written report contents of which were read over and explained to him. Finding the same to be correct, the informant put his L.T.I. on the said report. Thereafter, he went to Gunupur Police Station and handed over the said report to the OIC, Gunupur Police Station. The O.I.C. Gunupur Police Station registered the case and took up investigation. The informant also identified the wearing apparels of the deceased which is marked as M.O.I. In the cross-examination, the informant admitted that he could not tell the date and month of the year of the occurrence and the deceased was lean and thin built. He denied a suggestion that he did not state in the F.I.R. that he and his wife searched for his daughter through out that night. He denied a suggestion that he did not state in the F.I.R. that he and his wife searched for his daughter through out that night. P.W.2 who is a witness to the extra-judicial confession has stated that on 21.11.2000 at about 8 P.M. the accused standing in the dock came to his house to meet his eldest son, who is an Advocate in Gunupur Bar. At that time, his eldest son was not in the house. The accused-appellant enquired from him about his son and when he told him that his son was not in the house, the accused called P.W.2 to outside and told him that on the previous night of Monday at about 8 P.M. he took the daughter of the informant (P.W.1) to the husk house situated at Golasahi for sexual enjoyment and he offered Chocolates to her but she declined to take the same and he caught hold of her for sexual enjoyment and when the girl shouted, he pressed her neck and killed her. Further, the accused told him that the police would arrest him and he requested him to tell his son and to get him released on bail. P.W.2 told the accused-appellant that his son was not taking such type of cases and asked to go away. But the accused told him not to disclose to anybody and went away from there. In the cross-examination, P.W.2 admitted that on 25.11.2000 at about 8.30 P.M. the police examined him. He denied the suggestion given by the defence that he did not specifically told the Investigating Officer that the accused called P.W.2 to outside of his house. But P.W.2 admitted in the cross-examination that the informant was not related to him. P.W.3 a physically handicapped person is the witness to the last-seen theory. In examination-in-chief he stated that he knew the family members of the informant and the accused. His house and the house of the informant were nearby but in different Sahi. Golasahi and Brahmin Sahi were meeting at one junction (Chhak). P.W.3 most the time remained in a room by the side of Golasahi. About two years five months back on a Monday at about 8.00 P.M., he found the deceased daughter of the informant going from Relly Sahi towards Brahmin Sahi by holding money in her fist and the accused was going behind her. P.W.3 most the time remained in a room by the side of Golasahi. About two years five months back on a Monday at about 8.00 P.M., he found the deceased daughter of the informant going from Relly Sahi towards Brahmin Sahi by holding money in her fist and the accused was going behind her. At that time, there was some quarrel in the street among the Sahi people for about 10 minutes. Thereafter, he found that the accused taking away the daughter of the informant towards Gali (passage) towards a husk house by holding her with one hand and by closing her mouth by another hand. In the cross-examination, P.W.3 admitted that the house of one Sri Manipatra, who is an Advocate is just in front of his house in the Gola Sahi. He also admitted that the house of Krishna is adjacent to the house of Advocate Manipatra and that by the side of his house the house of one Ramesh, who is a Goldsmith is situated. If one goes towards right side of his house then Brahmin street and bus stand can be touched. The Brahmin street is at a distance of 10 cubits from his house. On the very day of occurrence, though the police asked him, but he did not tell anything to the police. On the next day, he disclosed the facts before the police. He denied the suggestion given by the defence that he did not state the facts before the I.O. that the daughter of the informant was holding money in her fist. He also denied a specific suggestion by the defence that he did not state before the I.O. that he found the accused taking the daughter of the informant towards Gali by holding her with one hand and by closing her mouth with another hand. He admitted that on the following day, he saw the dead body of the deceased. P.W.4 is an independent seizure witness, who proved the seizure of wearing apparels of the deceased which is marked as Ext.1. P.W.5 is a Helper in a bus-stand. He admitted that on the following day, he saw the dead body of the deceased. P.W.4 is an independent seizure witness, who proved the seizure of wearing apparels of the deceased which is marked as Ext.1. P.W.5 is a Helper in a bus-stand. In examination-in-chief, he stated that in the eleventh month of the year 2000 on Tuesday night at about 12 the appellant came to him and asked him to go with him and on the river bed he told him that on the next day police dog will come and when P.W.5 asked the appellant as to what would happen to him if the police dog came there, the appellant disclosed him that on the previous night he offered Chocolates to the daughter of the informant (P.W.1) of Brahmin Sahi and when she refused to accept the Chocolates and apprehending that she would tell her parents, the accused-appellant killed her by pressing her neck. After hearing this, P.W.5 instructed the accused to surrender before the police. On the next day, he was examined by the police. In the cross-examination, P.W.5 admitted that his house was situated in Kumbhar Sahi near the Cinema Hall. At that time no picture was being screened in the Cinema Hall. He further admitted that the accused-appellant is not related to him. He also admitted in the cross-examination that he had no previous acquaintance with the accused-appellant. Again he was recalled by the prosecution. In further cross-examination, he admitted that he was working as Helper in the bus-stand and the accused standing in the dock was pulling Rickshaw and he was a Rickshaw puller at the bus-stand. As such, P.W.5 and the accused used to meet each other and had acquaintance with each other and they were friends before the occurrence. In further cross-examination, he has stated that he was working as Helper in the Truck. P.W.6, who was then is working as Constable in Gunupur Police Station, produced the accused-appellant before the Doctor for examination and also a witness to the seizure of the wearing apparels of the appellant. He proved the seizure list marked as Ext.2 and his signature marked as Ext.2/1. Also he identified the seized wearing apparels of the appellant in the Court which are marked as M.Os. III to V. In the cross-examination, he admitted that no specific marks of identification of M.Os. He proved the seizure list marked as Ext.2 and his signature marked as Ext.2/1. Also he identified the seized wearing apparels of the appellant in the Court which are marked as M.Os. III to V. In the cross-examination, he admitted that no specific marks of identification of M.Os. III to V existed but he stated that seeing those articles he could identity. P.W.7 is the witness to the inquest and also witness to seizure and has proved Exts.3 and Ext.4. P.W.8 is the Scriber of the F.I.R. In the examination-in-chief, he has stated that on 21.11.2000 in the morning, the informant came to his house and told him that his daughter was lying dead in a half-constructed house in between Brahamin Sahi and Gola Sahi. By stating so the informant requested him to (P.W.8) to scribe an F.I.R. P.W.8 scribed the F.I.R. and also proved the F.I.R. marked as Ext.5. He also stated that the informant put his L.T.I. and he also endorsed the said L.T.I. of the informant and put his signature thereon. In the cross-examination, P.W.8 admitted that he had not made any separate endorsement in the F.I.R. that he read over and explained the contents to the informant. P.W.9 is the Medical Officer, who examined the accused-appellant and made ossification test. In the said test, he found that the appellant was aged about 20 to 25 years having all secondary sex character developed. He is capable of sexual intercourse. But there is no injury on the private part and any sign of violence. With his consent, pubic hairs, hairs of the head and nail cuttings from both the hands were kept separately and handed over to constable (P.W.6) for Chemical Examination. P.W.9 also proved the Chemical Examination report marked as Ext.6. P.W.10 is the Medical Officer who conducted the autopsy and found the following injuries : “A. fresh dead body of female child of average built, secondary sexual character not developed with eyes closed, mouth semi-open with the tongue in between the teeth, blood stained frothy discharged from mouth and nostril, pupils dilated, lips cyanised, faecal discharged at the anus present. Rigor mortis present all over the body. No ligature mark around the neck. Vaginal orifice admits one finger. The hymen was circular. There was no visible injury near or over the Genitalia. No discharge or bleeding seen from introitus. Rigor mortis present all over the body. No ligature mark around the neck. Vaginal orifice admits one finger. The hymen was circular. There was no visible injury near or over the Genitalia. No discharge or bleeding seen from introitus. The body had the following ante-mortem injuries; (i)Ante-mortem laceration at the lunar side of flexure aspect of elbow of right arm 1” x 1” x 1/4”, (ii)Ante-mortem abrasion over the post-lateral side of right elbow and ½” x 1” (iii)Two small abrasions on the right side of submandibular region, (iv)Three small abrasions over the left submandibular area (ante mortem), (v)Ante mortem abrasion near the angle of mouth (left side). 2 and 1/2” x 2” (vi)Ante-mortem abrasion lateral to left eye 3” x 1 and 1/2” On dissection P.W.10 found the following : Neck : Mucosa of trachea congested filled with blood stained frothy discharge, Thorax : Heat :- Left side empty, right side filled with dark blood, both lungs congested with patechial hemorrhages and oedematous. Large vessel intact and filled with dark blood.” P.W.10 opined that the all injuries were ante-mortem in nature and cause of death was due to asphyxia which might have been caused by throttling leading to respiratory arrest, cardiac arrest and the time of death was within 12 to 24 hours. He also proved the Post-Mortem report marked as Ext.7. In the cross-examination, he admitted that he did not found any ligature mark around the neck. In further examination by the Court, he admitted that in case of throttling by hand, the death must be caused without ligature mark. He also admitted that the death was homicidal in nature. P.W.11 is the wife of the informant. She also corroborated the statement of P.W.1 to the effect that she sent her deceased daughter to bring betel and as her daughter did not return to house, she went to Brahmin Sahi and she enquired from the betel shop about her daughter. The shop-keeper told her that her daughter after purchasing betel, left the shop. Hearing this, she came back to her house and searched the daughter and told her husband. Thereafter, she searched the daughter but she could not trace her. On the next day, the dead body of her daughter was found lying in a half-constructed husk house situated in Kachera Sahi in between Brahmin Sahi and Gola Sahi. She also identified the wearing apparels of the deceased. Thereafter, she searched the daughter but she could not trace her. On the next day, the dead body of her daughter was found lying in a half-constructed husk house situated in Kachera Sahi in between Brahmin Sahi and Gola Sahi. She also identified the wearing apparels of the deceased. In the cross-examination, she admitted that the house of the accused is behind her Sahi which is also known as Relly Sahi. She denied the suggestion given by the defence that she did not state before the Investigating Officer that her daughter did not return to her house and she went to the betel shop for betel. P.W.12 was then working as Block Development Officer, Gunupur. As per is his version, he was also vested with the powers of Executive Magistrate. As per the direction of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, he along with the Additional Tahasildar-cum-Executive Magistrate, Gunupur came to police station to remain present during the video recording of the statement given by the appellant in Gunupur Police Station Case No.178 dtd. 21.11.2000 registered under Section 302 I.P.C. and also proved the order of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gunupur marked as Ext.8. He further stated in the cross-examination that the appellant agreed to make statement regarding the case of the occurrence before video camera outside the police station building. Accordingly, he, Sri Raito (P.W.15) and the appellant came outside the Police Station. In their presence the appellant made statements and gave demonstration of the manner of commission of the offence of his causing the death of Shyamala before the video camera which have been recorded. The statement and demonstration of the accused-appellant was recorded by a videographer. At that time no police personnel was present near that place. Thereafter, the video cassette was seized by the O.I.C. Gunupur, Police Station in his presence and in presence of Bhaskar Raito (P.W.15). They put their signatures and sealed the same along with video cassette and also proved the same vide Ext.9. In the cross-examination, he admitted that he had not seen the requisition and the appellant prior to that date. The place where the video recording was made, was at a distance of about 15 to 20 yards from the Police Station building, but that place was inside the compound of the Police Station premises. He had no idea about name and qualification of the videographer. The place where the video recording was made, was at a distance of about 15 to 20 yards from the Police Station building, but that place was inside the compound of the Police Station premises. He had no idea about name and qualification of the videographer. In the cross-examination he denied the suggestion that at the instance of I.O. he gave his signature in plain slip paper and the seizure list. P.W.13 is the Scientific Officer, who collected the samples and other incriminating articles and sent the same to the Foreignsic Science Laboratory and also collected photographs. P.W.14 is the Constable of Gunupur Police Station. He is the witness to the seizure of the wearing apparels of the deceased and also accompanied the dead body and identified the same. P.W.15 is the Additional Tahasildar-cum-Executive Magistrate, Gunupur. He stated that on 25.11.2000, he along with Subash Chandra Sahu (P.W.12) proceeded to Gunupur Police Station and on enquiry, the O.I.C., showed the appellant present in the dock, who wanted to give statement regarding the occurrence before him and P.W.12. Accordingly, he and P.W.12 brought out the appellant outside the police station and on enquiry, the appellant disclosed his identity and also agreed to make statement regarding commission of crime. On enquiry, the appellant also stated that he wanted to make the statement and give demonstration out of free will and that there was no threat or coercion from police or anybody. Thereafter, the appellant made a statement and demonstrated the manner of commission of the crime causing death of the deceased (Shyamala) and the said statement and demonstration of the accused-appellant was recorded in a video cassette by the videographer (P.W.16). The said recording was made outside the Police Station but within the Police Station premises and during that time no police personnel were present in that area. After the video shooting was over, the video cassette was seized by the O.I.C., Gunupur Police Station in presence of P.W.12, after obtaining the signature on the paper slip, which is marked as Ext.9. P.W.15 has proved Ext.9. In the cross-examination, P.W.15 admitted that he did not remember the exact time of receiving the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. When he reached the police station, P.W.12 has already been there and he has not seen the appellant after that day. P.W.15 has proved Ext.9. In the cross-examination, P.W.15 admitted that he did not remember the exact time of receiving the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. When he reached the police station, P.W.12 has already been there and he has not seen the appellant after that day. By the time, he went to the Police Station, the appellant was inside the Police Station hazat. He brought the appellant outside the police station building upto a distance of 50 yards and thereafter, P.Ws.12 and 15 enquired. Except P.Ws.12 and 15, no outsider were present when P.W.15 conducted enquiry. He denied the suggestion given by the defence that he did not disclose before the Investigating Officer that out of his own will, the appellant made statement. P.W.15, however, also admitted in the cross-examination that there was no specific identification mark on the video cassette. He further admitted that he did not know who were present outside at the time of seizure of the video cassette. P.W.16 is the videographer. He corroborated the statements of P.W.12 and P.W.15 regarding video recording. In the cross-examination, he admitted that he had no certificate issued by Government relating to his working as videographer and also he had no technical certificate to that effect. P.W.17 is the Sub-Inspector Police. At the relevant time he was working as O.I.C. of Gunupur Police Station. He registered the F.I.R. as Gunupur P.S. Case No.178 of 2000. He drew up the formal F.I.R. and took up investigation. During investigation, he examined the informant and some other witnesses. He held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and prepared the inquest report marked as Ext.3. He sent the dead body of the deceased for post-mortem examination. Thereafter, he collected the sample earth and blood stained earth from the spot. He also seized the wearing apparels of the deceased, i.e., reddish printed gown suspected to be stained with blood and prepared the seizure list marked as Ext.1. On 22.11.2000, P.W.17 utilised the scientific team and the police dog in the investigation and obtained the spot visit report. On 25.11.2000, he apprehended the accused and examined him and made requisition to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gunupur for deputing two Executive Magistrates to remain present at Gunupur Police Station during demonstration agreed to be given by the accused. Thereafter, he handed over the accused to the said two Executive Magistrates for recording the video cassette. On 25.11.2000, he apprehended the accused and examined him and made requisition to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gunupur for deputing two Executive Magistrates to remain present at Gunupur Police Station during demonstration agreed to be given by the accused. Thereafter, he handed over the accused to the said two Executive Magistrates for recording the video cassette. On the same day at about 9.30 P.M. after the video shotting was over and on production by the Executive Magistrates, P.W.17 seized the said video cassette in a sealed condition. On 26.11.2000, P.W.17 sent the appellant to the hospital with requisition for collection of his hair and nail clippings and for age determination. He also seized the wearing apparels of the appellant and sent the same for the Chemical Examination. After obtaining the Post-Mortem report and completion of investigation, he submitted the charge sheet. In the cross-examination he admitted that during the year 2000, there was no barbed fencing in the police station premises. He further admitted that the dog squad was utilized on 22.11.2000. He received the report from the Dog Master relating to utilization of dog during investigation but he did not know the name of Dog Master, who submitted the report which is marked as Ext.A at the instance of the defence. On 25.11.2000, around 9.00 P.M. P.W.12 and P.W.15 came to the police station. Subsequently, when the videographer came to the police station, it was around 9.10 or 9.15 P.M. At the relevant time the accused was only detained in the police custody (Hazat). By the time of arrival of the Executive Magistrates, the appellant was kept inside the room of P.W.17. Other police personnel were in the main hall in the police station building. About 5 to 7 P.M. the staff including officers and constables were in the main hall. The Executive Magistrates took the appellant from the police station building towards the opposite side of pigon lot building and that place is in between the building of the pigon lot and the Eye Ward of the hospital. However, he admitted that he has not mentioned the said fact in the Case Diary. At about 9.00 P.M. on 25.11.2000 P.W.17 seized the video cassette on production by Sri Bhaskar Raito (P.W.15) and at that time the other Executive Magistrate, Sri Sahoo and the videographer were present. However, he admitted that he has not mentioned the said fact in the Case Diary. At about 9.00 P.M. on 25.11.2000 P.W.17 seized the video cassette on production by Sri Bhaskar Raito (P.W.15) and at that time the other Executive Magistrate, Sri Sahoo and the videographer were present. On the spot of crime, he stated that it was an abandoned house situated in between Brahmin Sahi and Kachara Sahi. Gola Sahi is parallel to Brahmin Sahi. Kachera Sahi is in front of Dhobi Street and in between Gola Sahi and Kachera Sahi. Towards eastern side of the spot, there is Brahmin Sahi road and towards the western side the Kacheri Sahi road is there. One G. Murali’s house is opposite to the frontage of the abandoned house. The abandoned house was situated as follows : “Immediately East : Gali rasta (passage) West : House of Gudula Apa Rao, South : Brahmin street and North : Kachara street.” P.W.17 further admitted that no part of the dead body was hidden inside the husk. P.W.17 stated that P.W.2 ha stated before him that the appellant confessed his guilt but P.W.2 did not reproduce the exact words. P.W.2 did not state before P.W.17 that the accused is of his caste and the mother and sister of the accused used to supply water in the house of P.W.2 and they were not financially rich and that with a hope of getting help from his elder son, who was an Advocate, the appellant came to his house but stated the appellant came to his house to meet his elder son. P.W.3 did not state before him that the daughter of the informant was holding money in her fist. He did not state before him that there was quarrel in his Sahi among Sahi people for about ten minutes and thereafter he found the accused taking the daughter of the informant towards Gali by holding with one hand and by closing her mouth with another hand. He had not stated before him that he had seen the dead body. P.W.5 did not specifically state the place of accused offering Chocolate to the girl in the Brahmin Sahi. He had not stated before him that he had seen the dead body. P.W.5 did not specifically state the place of accused offering Chocolate to the girl in the Brahmin Sahi. P.W.5 did not specifically state before P.W.17 that he is a Helper in a truck in the bus stand during the relevant period and the appellant was a Rickshaw puller stationed at Bus stand and they had acquaintance and friendship. P.W.11 did not state before P.W.17 that as her daughter did not return to her house at 8.00 P.M., she went to the betel shop of Malighasi Pujari and that on her enquiry she came to know that after purchasing betel her daughter left for her house and that hearing this P.W.11 came back to her house and that finding her daughter not there she shearched for her daughter near the house and so also came to the bus stand and informed her husband (P.W.1). P.W.12 did not specifically state before P.W.7 that after arrival at the police station he and Sri Raito gave their identity to the appellant and that the appellant had come to record the statement and demonstration regarding the occurrence in video. He did not specifically state before P.W.17 that the accused demonstrated as to how he had caused the murder of Shyamala but stated about the manner of killing. P.W.15 did not specifically state before him that he and P.W.12 gave their identity to the appellant and enquired from him. P.W.15 did not state before P.W.17 that the appellant told them that out of his own will he was making demonstration. D.W.1 is the uncle of the accused-appellant. He specifically stated that there was no half-constructed house situated in Brahmin Sahi near any such well. In the cross-examination, he admitted that his house situated in Ward No.7 of Gunupur N.A.C. He could not say the places and roads covered within Ward No.7. Brahmin Sahi is a very big street and he could not say from where it starts and at which it ends. He further admitted that there are five Relley Sahis in Gunupur town and his house is situated in Third Relly Sahi. From his Sahi one has to cross another Sahi to touch Brahmin Sahi. D.W.1 admitted that the accused was his own Bhanaja (Nephew). He further admitted that there are five Relley Sahis in Gunupur town and his house is situated in Third Relly Sahi. From his Sahi one has to cross another Sahi to touch Brahmin Sahi. D.W.1 admitted that the accused was his own Bhanaja (Nephew). 7.On scrutinizing the evidence, it can be seen that P.W.3 is the only witness with regard to the last-seen theory. P.W.3 is a physically handicapped person being affected in both legs by polio and unable to stand. Most of the time he remained in a room by the side of Gola Sahi. He found the deceased daughter of the informant was going from Relli Sahi towards Brahmin Sahi by holding money in her fist and the accused was going behind her. At that time there was some quarrel in the street among the Sahi’s people for about ten minutes. Thereafter, he found that the accused taking away the daughter of the informant towards Gali (passage) towards a husk house by holding her one hand and by closing her mouth by another hand. But P.W.7 in his cross-examination has stated that P.W.3 did not state before him that the daughter of the informant holding money in her fist and that there was a quarrel in his Sahi and that thereafter, he found the accused taking the daughter of the informant towards a Gali by holding her one hand and by closing her mouth by another hand. In fact P.W.3 developed this part of story in Court but he had only seen that at about 8.00 P.M. the deceased was moving from Relli Sahi towards Brahmin Sahi by holding money in her fist and that the accused was going behind her. It has been held by the apex Court in AIR 1957 SC 614 (Chinniah Servai v. State of Madras) which is hereunder : “Generally speaking oral testimony in this context may be classified into three categories, namely (1) wholly reliable (2) wholly unreliable and (3) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. In the first category of proof, the Court should have no difficulty in coming to its conclusion either way - it may convict or may acquit on the testimony of a single witness, if it is found to be above reproach or suspicion of interestedness, incompetence or subornation. In the second category, the Court equally has no difficulty in coming to its conclusion. In the second category, the Court equally has no difficulty in coming to its conclusion. It is in the third category of cases, that the Court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial. There is another danger in insisting on plurality of witnesses. Irrespective of the quality of the oral evidence of a single witness, if Court were to insist on plurality of witnesses in proof of any fact, they will be indirectly encouraging subornation of witnesses. Situations may arise and do arise where only a single person is available to give evidence in support of a disputed fact. The Court naturally has to weigh carefully such a testimony and if it is satisfied that the evidence is reliable and free from all taints which tend to render oral testimony open to suspicion, it becomes its duty to act upon such testimony.” With the above ratio, this Court examined the evidence of P.W.3 and comes to conclusion that his evidence is neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. Therefore, this Court scrutinized the evidence very clearly and comes to the conclusion that P.W.3 had seen only the first part of the evidence, i.e., at about 8.00 P.M. he found the deceased daughter of the informant was going from Relly sahi towards Brahmin Sahi by holding money in her fist and the accused was going behind her. This first part was corroborated by the mother of the accused (P.W.11) that she had sent his daughter to bring betel from the betel shop of Ghasi Mali of Brahmin Sahi. Therefore, that part of the evidence is believable and remains undemolished. There is no dispute that the deceased was going to bring betel from the betel shop of Ghasi Mali of Brahmin Sahi and the accused was going behind her. 8.The appellant made extra judicial confession before P.W.2 and P.W.5. P.W.2 specifically stated in examination-in-chief that on 21.11.2000 at about 8.00 P.M., the accused came to his house to meet his eldest son, who was an Advocate at Gunupur Bar. 8.The appellant made extra judicial confession before P.W.2 and P.W.5. P.W.2 specifically stated in examination-in-chief that on 21.11.2000 at about 8.00 P.M., the accused came to his house to meet his eldest son, who was an Advocate at Gunupur Bar. The accused enquired from him about his son and when he told him that his son was not in the house, the accused called him outside his house and told him that on the previous night on 20.11.2000 at about 8.00 P.M., he took the daughter of the informant to the husk house situated at Golasahi for sexual enjoyment and offered Chocolates to her but she declined to take the same and he caught hold of her for sexual enjoyment. When the girl shouted, he pressed her neck and killed her. The accused further told that the police would arrest him and requested P.W.2 to tell his son and get him released on bail. P.W.2 told the accused that his son was not taking up such type of cases and asked him to go away but the accused requested him not to disclose the fact to anybody and went away from there. There is no material to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.2 though minor contradictions are there, which will not affect the prosecution case. In the cross-examination nothing has been demolished by the defence except bringing out some minor contradictions. P.W.5 is another witness before whom the accused confessed that on the previous night he offered Chocolates to the daughter of the informant of Brahmin Sahi but when she refused; apprehending that she may tell her parents, the appellant killed her by pressing her neck. Hearing this, P.W.5 told the appellant to surrender before the police. In the cross-examination P.W.5 also admitted that the appellant was a Helper in the bus stand. Though there are some minor contradictions, however, appellant reposed confidence on P.W.5 as he was working in the same bus stand and was a friend. The accused went to the son of P.W.2 for his bail. Since the son was not available, he disclosed the fact to his father (P.W.2). In this context, the judgment reported in (2011) 50 OCR 855 *(Buturu Mahanto @ Lingaraj v. State of Orissa) and (1975) 4 SCC 234 (Maghar Singh v. State of Punjab) are relevant. The accused went to the son of P.W.2 for his bail. Since the son was not available, he disclosed the fact to his father (P.W.2). In this context, the judgment reported in (2011) 50 OCR 855 *(Buturu Mahanto @ Lingaraj v. State of Orissa) and (1975) 4 SCC 234 (Maghar Singh v. State of Punjab) are relevant. In the decision reported in (1975) 4 SCC 234 , the apex Court has held as follows : “The evidence furnished by the extra judicial confession made by the accused to witnesses cannot be termed to be a tainted evidence and if corroboration is required it is only by way of abundant caution. If the Court believes the witnesses before whom the confession is made and it is satisfied that the confession was voluntary, then in such a case conviction can be founded on such evidence.” With the above ratio, this Court has examined the evidence of P.W.2 and 5 and finds that they are the reliable witnesses. Therefore, the prosecution has been able to prove extra-judicial confession made by the appellant. In the decision reported in (2011) 50 OCR 855 (Buturu Mahanto @ Lingaraj v. State of Orissa) no ratio has been decided and the same is factually distinguishable. In he said case there is no corroboration with regard to extra-judicial confession. 9.Further in the present case, a patch of human blood was detected from the wearing apparels of appellant and was sent for Chemical Examination. The Chemical Examination report vide Ext.2 reveals that human blood was detected from the half-pant of the accused. On this, a question was put to him under Section 313, Cr.P.C. but he denied the same saying it to be false and he had not explained how the human blood was detected from his half pant. This is a circumstance, which clearly goes against the appellant. Motive has been proved by the prosecution through extra-judicial confession that the accused was taking the deceased for sexual enjoyment but since she protested, he throttled her neck. This is also another event in the chain of circumstances, which goes against the appellant. 10.The prosecution has also relied upon the evidences of P.Ws.12 and 15 and 16. P.Ws.12 and 15 are the witnesses before whom the appellant confessed and demonstrated how he committed the crime. This is also another event in the chain of circumstances, which goes against the appellant. 10.The prosecution has also relied upon the evidences of P.Ws.12 and 15 and 16. P.Ws.12 and 15 are the witnesses before whom the appellant confessed and demonstrated how he committed the crime. On scrutinizing the evidence, it is revealed that the confession and demonstration was recorded by a video camera in the police station premises. In the said premises without any warning given by the Executive Magistrates (P.Ws.12 and 15) to the accused, they called him to the said premises of police station and recorded his statement. In fact before recording confession, it is the duty of the Executive Magistrate to give warning to the accused. But in this case, there is no material to show that such warning was given to the appellant and the statement of the accused was recorded in the police station premises. Further, P.W.16 has not been identified by P.Ws.12 and 15 and no certificate of accurate functioning of the instrument has been given. In such background, the evidence of P.Ws.12, 15 and 16 cannot be relied upon. However, following proved circumstances completes the chain to implicate the appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. They are the appellant and deceased were last seen together by P.W.3, voluntarily disclosure of commission of crime by appellant before P.W.2 and P.W.5 and motive for such commission and finally non-explanation of the appellant relating to detection of blood from his half pant. 11.In view of this, it is crystal clear that the appellant and the appellant alone was the author of the crime and none else. Thus, the learned Court below has not gone wrong in conviction the appellant under Section 302 of I.P.C. In view of the above the jail criminal appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.