JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the State appellant/applicant and perused the material on record. 2. This application has been filed by the State appellant/applicant with the prayer that leave to appeal may be granted against the judgement and order dated 14.12.2015, passed in Sessions Trial No. 51 of 2011, arising out of Case Crime No. 381 of 2010, under section 302/34 IPC, P.S. Ajeetmal, District Auraiya by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Auraiya, whereby the accused respondents have been acquitted for the offence punishable under the sections referred to above. 3. Learned A.G.A. for the State appellant/applicant has submitted that in the present case incident took place in the intervening night of 20/21.10.2010 while deceased Shyam Bihari, elder brother of informant PW-1 Raghuveer Prasad Tiwari, was sleeping near his tube-well inside the Gher, he was assaulted by some unknown persons with sharp edged weapons. According to postmortem examination report, five injuries were found on the body of the deceased Shyam Bihari. 4. Considered the submission. From the perusal of record, it appears that there is no eyewitness of the incident. The informant PW-1 Raghuveer Prasad Tiwari came to know about the said incident in the next morning. The only evidence available on record against the respondents is the extra judicial confession made by accused respondent Raj Kishore @ Pahadi, that too before such a person who was not in a position to save him from the clutches of law. According to PW-2 Anshul Dubey, accused-respondent Raj Kishore @ Pahadi came to his house in the evening of 22.10.2010 and made a confessional statement regarding his involvement in the alleged incident along with co-accused Tillu Pal and Subhash Pal. Extra judicial confession is a very weak type of evidence which requires corroboration. As per the statement of PW-1 some quarrel had taken place between the deceased and accused respondents 2-3 days prior to the alleged incident, but in support of his statement no witness has been examined. Thus, there is no corroboration of the alleged extra judicial confession. Motive for committing the offence also appears to be very weak. Under these circumstances, the benefit of doubt was given to the accused respondents. 5. We do not find any factual or legal error in the assessment of evidence by the court below. Moreover, the view taken by the court below is a possible view. Motive for committing the offence also appears to be very weak. Under these circumstances, the benefit of doubt was given to the accused respondents. 5. We do not find any factual or legal error in the assessment of evidence by the court below. Moreover, the view taken by the court below is a possible view. The court below has given cogent, convincing and satisfactory reasons while passing the impugned judgment and order. The impugned judgment and order passed by the court below does not suffer from any infirmity. We, therefore, do not consider it to be a fit case for grant of leave to appeal to the applicant. 6. The application seeking leave to appeal is, accordingly, rejected. . . . . State of U.P. Vs Raj Kishore Alias Pahadi & 2 Others Government Appeal No. - 1612 of 2016 For the Petitioner : G.A. Arvind Kumar Tripathi,J. Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi,J. Since the application seeking leave to appeal is rejected, consequently, the appeal is also dismissed. 6.4.2016