JUDGMENT : K.R. Mohapatra, J. This Appeal has been entertained by this Court pursuant to a petition of appeal by the appellant who is incarcerated in Circle Jail, Sambalpur. In this Appeal, the convict-appellant seeks to assail the judgment and order dated 30.3.2006, passed by learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Sambalpur in S.T. No. 49/16 of 2005 (arising out of C.T. Case No. 2955 of 2004 of the Court of S.D.J.M., Sambalpur), convicting the appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentencing him undergo imprisonment for life. 2. The FIR story reveals that deceased-Padma Munda was the second wife of the appellant. The first wife of the appellant had died earlier. On the fateful day, i.e., 12.08.2004 at about 4.00 P.M., appellant came to the house of the informant, namely, Gobardhan Sandha and confided before him that he (appellant) had killed his wife, ‘the Bhaneji’ (niece) of the informant, and requested to handover him to the Police. Receiving such information from the appellant, informant along with others went to the house of the appellant and found the dead body of Padma lying in the bed room with cut injuries on her neck. The informant also noticed Pravasini Khatia and Dukhi Munda were present at the spot, who informed that the appellant along his mother, namely, Suriya Munda, his third wife, namely, Lata Meher and nephew, Chandan Munda had committed murder of Padma. The informant immediately intimated the incident to the Police over phone. After arrival of Police, FIR was lodged at the spot. 3. During course of investigation, Police arrested the accused persons. In course of investigation, Police recovered the knife, the weapon of offence, on the basis of the information of the appellant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, inquest was held as well as postmortem of the dead body was performed. Incriminating materials including the knife (weapon of offence) was sent for chemical examination. On completion of investigation, the I.O. submitted charge-sheet under Sections 302/34 I.P.C against the appellant and other accused persons. 4. The plea of appellant was complete denial of his involvement in the offence and that of his false implication. The defence took the plea that one Pravasini (P.W.-2), Mali (P.W.1) had seen the appellant giving Rs.7,000/- to the deceased. Subsequently, Pravasini and Mali asked the deceased to lend Rs.300/-. 4. The plea of appellant was complete denial of his involvement in the offence and that of his false implication. The defence took the plea that one Pravasini (P.W.-2), Mali (P.W.1) had seen the appellant giving Rs.7,000/- to the deceased. Subsequently, Pravasini and Mali asked the deceased to lend Rs.300/-. When the deceased did not accede to their demand, they threatened to assault her, if she did not lend money by evening of the ill-fated day. The appellant being a daily wage-earner had been to his work and on return, he found the deceased lying dead in their bed room. He raised the alarm and intimated the informant about the incident. However, the informant falsely implicated him in the offence. 5. To bring home the charge, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses, out of whom P.Ws.1 and 2, namely, Mali and Pravasini are eyewitness to the occurrence. P.W.3 is the informant and also a witness to the inquest. P.W. 4 is a co-villager of the appellant and a witness to the process of leading to discovery by the appellant and recovery of knife. P.Ws. 8 and 9 are the seizure witnesses. P.W. 5 is an Amin, who prepared the spot map. P.W.6 is the erstwhile Councilor in whose presence, at the Police Station, a conciliation was made between the deceased and appellant on 11.08.2004. P.W.10 is the Doctor who had conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and P.W.11 is the Investigating Officer. P.W.7 is the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, who had made a Station Diary Entry on 10.8.2004 on the report of Kartika Munda (Appellant). 6. The prosecution also relied upon Exts.1 to 23 and M.O. I to M.O. VI to establish the charge against the appellant and other accused persons. Defence, on the other hand, examined one Bilasini Munda as D.W.-1 in support of its plea. 7. Before adverting to the merits of the Appeal, it must be made clear that there are as many as twelve injuries on the body of the deceased out of which injury Nos.4 and 5 are sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death of a person, as opined by the Doctor (P.W.10). He also opined that all the injuries are ante mortem in nature and the death is homicidal. The cause of death was due to asphyxia coupled with profuse hemorrhage and shock. He also opined that all the injuries are ante mortem in nature and the death is homicidal. The cause of death was due to asphyxia coupled with profuse hemorrhage and shock. The opinion of P.W.10 was not disputed by learned counsel for the appellant. Thus, we proceed further to analyze the evidence of the witnesses and materials available on record accepting death of Padma to be homicidal and injuries being ante-mortem in nature. 8. Smt. Sunanda Biswal, learned counsel for the appellant assailed the impugned judgment on the following grounds:- 1. Learned Trial Court ought not have relied upon the extrajudicial confession of the appellant made before P.W. 3, informant. 2. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2, who are described as eye witnesses to the occurrence by the prosecution, should not have been relied upon; 3. The motive on the part of the appellant to commit the murder was not established beyond reasonable doubt; 4. The story described in the FIR is concocted and materially contradicts the statements of P.Ws. 1 and 2; 5. Leading to discovery of the weapon of offence does not by itself conclusively establish that the appellant had committed murder with the said weapon of offence; and lastly, 6. Conviction can not be sustained basing upon a defective investigation. 9. The informant (P.W.3) in his evidence stated that on 12.8.2004 at about 3.30 P.M, when he was at his home, the appellant came and told that ‘MAMU TUMARA BHANEJI KU MARIDEICHHI’ (I have killed your niece). He further deposed that the appellant used to address him ‘Mamu’ (maternal uncle) by village courtesy and deceased Padma was his ‘Bhaneji’ (niece) in that capacity. When P.W.3 asked about the cause of quarrel and advised him to go to the Police Station, the appellant replied that ‘MU PURAPURI SESA KARI DEICHHI, MOTE POLICE RE DEIDIA’ (I have killed her. Handover me to Police). Later, Faguni, Sudarsan, Shyam and other villagers arrived at the home of P.W.3 and appellant also disclosed before them about the incident and his involvement. To know the truth, they proceeded to the house of Kartika and found Padma lying dead on the floor of the bed room having received bleeding injuries. The appellant on his (informant’s) query confessed that he had killed the deceased by means of a knife. To know the truth, they proceeded to the house of Kartika and found Padma lying dead on the floor of the bed room having received bleeding injuries. The appellant on his (informant’s) query confessed that he had killed the deceased by means of a knife. The evidence of P.W.3 further disclosed that when he along with other villagers and the appellant reached at the house of the deceased, many persons including P.Ws.1 and 2 were present there. Thereafter, he intimated the Police over phone. Smt. Biswal, learned counsel for the appellant relying upon a stray statement of P.W.3, in cross-examination, submitted that the accused (appellant) was not very faithful to P.W.3. Relying upon such statement, she submitted that ordinarily a person is not likely to confess his crime to an outsider unless the accused had confidence in him. She also relied upon a decision in the case of Kanka @ Duyon Ho Vs. State of Orissa, reported in (91) 2001 CLT 334 and submitted that extra-judicial confession must not only be voluntary, but the same must be true. When P.W.3 himself admits in his cross-examination that the appellant was not very faithful to him, it would not be safe to rely upon such confessional statements, if any, to convict the appellant for offence under Section 302 IPC. 10. Per contra, Mr. Katkia, learned Addl. Government Advocate submits that the appellant is the nephew of P.W.3 by village courtesy and his house situates within 50 meters from the house of the appellant. There is no material available on record to come to a conclusion that there was any enmity or ill-feeling between the appellant and P.W.3 or P.W.3 had any motive to implicate the appellant falsely. He further submitted that the time of occurrence and lodging of the FIR (Ext.1) is so proximate that no doubt can be raised for false implication of the appellant in the offence. 11. It is trite law that an extra-judicial confession is a very week piece of evidence, but the Court should not scrutinize an extra-judicial confession with a presumption that the same is doubtful. It should be scrutinized with circumspection and caution. P.W.3 happened to be maternal uncle of the appellant by village courtesy. 11. It is trite law that an extra-judicial confession is a very week piece of evidence, but the Court should not scrutinize an extra-judicial confession with a presumption that the same is doubtful. It should be scrutinized with circumspection and caution. P.W.3 happened to be maternal uncle of the appellant by village courtesy. Though a solitary statement of P.W.3 to the effect that the appellant was not very faithful to P.W.3 is available on record, but that deposition should not be a ground to disbelieve the confession made before P.W.3, which has been proved to be voluntary and free of any vices like allurement, pressure etc. It is also not the case of the defence that there was enmity or ill-feeling between the appellant and P.W.3. As submitted by Mr.Katkia, learned Addl. Government Advocate, the proximity of time between the occurrence and lodging of FIR, rules out any possibility of hatching up of a story against the appellant to implicate him in the occurrence. It is also the case of the defence that the appellant had narrated the entire incident before P.W.3. In this view of the matter, submission of Smt. Biswal to the effect that extra-judicial confession made by the appellant before P.W.3 should not be relied upon, is not acceptable. 12. The next submission of Smt. Biswal is that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 is not trustworthy and reliable. Further, the defence plea was not taken into consideration while scrutinizing the evidence on record. It is her submission that at the time of occurrence, the appellant was at his work place at Khetrajpur. To substantiate the case, the defence examined one Bilasini Munda as D.W.1. She in her statement deposed that on the date of the occurrence, Kartika Munda had gone to Khetarajpur to do the masonry works and was not present at the spot. The house of Kartika Munda was adjacent to her house. It reveals from the statement of D.W.1 that Kartika Munda, the appellant was not present at the spot when the occurrence took place. It also appears from her statement that D.W.1 was not herself present at the spot when the incident took place. She being a daily wage labourer was at her workplace. So her version with regard to the absence of the appellant at the place of occurrence at the relevant time is not acceptable. It also appears from her statement that D.W.1 was not herself present at the spot when the incident took place. She being a daily wage labourer was at her workplace. So her version with regard to the absence of the appellant at the place of occurrence at the relevant time is not acceptable. Further, the defence plea was that P.Ws.1 and 2 had seen the appellant giving Rs.7,000/- to his wife-Padma (the deceased), and subsequently, said Pravasini and Mali asked the deceased to lend Rs.300/-to which she denied, as a result of which both of them threatened her to assault seems to be purely hypothetical being based on no evidence at all. This plea of defence was not supported by the evidence led by the defence witness D.W.1. On the other hand, it is the consistent case of P.Ws.1 and 2 that they heard screaming of Padma Munda, the deceased from the house of appellant that ‘MARI GALI, NAHIN BANCHIBI, MATE BANCHA’ (I am dying. Save me). Hearing this, both the P.Ws. had proceeded to the house of the appellant to save Padma. When they entered inside the house of the appellant, they saw Kartika slitting the neck of the deceased by means of a knife sitting over her body. When they protested not to kill her, Kartika told them not to interfere in the matter. Being frightened, they came out and raised alarm and villagers gathered at the spot. Though a suggestion to the effect that P.Ws.1 and 2 had seen Kartika giving Rs.7,000/- to his wife and subsequently both of them asked to lend money to them, was put to both the witnesses, they denied the same. Both P.Ws.1 and 2 were cross-examined in detail, but nothing came out from their mouth to disbelieve their statements. Further, in presence of the witness, namely, P.W.4, the appellant led to discover the weapon of offence, i.e., M.O.1. The Medical Officer (P.W.10), who conducted postmortem over the dead body of the deceased, in his evidence, while describing the injuries, proved Ext.-11, which is the examination report of the weapons of offence and had opined that the injuries on the body of the deceased could be inflicted by M.O.1. The same has not been successfully challenged by the defence. The Medical Officer (P.W.10), who conducted postmortem over the dead body of the deceased, in his evidence, while describing the injuries, proved Ext.-11, which is the examination report of the weapons of offence and had opined that the injuries on the body of the deceased could be inflicted by M.O.1. The same has not been successfully challenged by the defence. Further, learned trial Court considering the materials on record including the evidence led by defence in course of adjudication, arrived at a conclusion that the appellant is the author of the crime. Smt. Biswal tried to bring out discrepancies in the statements of P.Ws.1 and 2 with regard to the topography of the house of the appellant and minor discrepancies in their statements; the same being trivial in nature have little relevance for the purpose of challenging conviction. In this view of the matter, the submission of Smt. Biswal to that effect is not sustainable. 13. Smt. Biswal further submitted that there was no motive for the appellant for committing the murder of his wife. It is her submission that there is no evidence that the appellant had married to Lata Meher (his third wife). Further, the dispute between the deceased and the appellant was reconciled at the intervention of the Councilor (P.W.6). Thus, when the dispute between Kartika and the deceased was reconciled at the intervention of the Councilor at the Police Station, it cannot be said that difference between them could be the motive for the appellant to commit murder. There is no dispute to the fact that there was a quarrel between appellant and the deceased on 10.8.2004, for which a Station Diary Entry was made. However, at the intervention of P.W.6 at the Police Station, the matter was reconciled and Kartika gave an undertaking to the effect that he would provide all facilities to Padma (deceased) and would not treat her with cruelty (Ext.5). It is also the evidence of the informant P.W.3 that there was constant quarrel between the appellant and the deceased because of third marriage of Kartika with Lata Meher. As discussed earlier, immediately after the occurrence, the appellant rushed to the house of P.W.3, which is hardly 50 meters away from his house to confide before him about the incident. Further, P.Ws.1 and 2 have seen the appellant slitting the neck of the deceased with M.O.1. As discussed earlier, immediately after the occurrence, the appellant rushed to the house of P.W.3, which is hardly 50 meters away from his house to confide before him about the incident. Further, P.Ws.1 and 2 have seen the appellant slitting the neck of the deceased with M.O.1. In above view of the matter, motive in the case at hand has been proved beyond reasonable doubt to bring home the charge against the appellant. 14. Though Smt. Biswal tried to make out a case that the story narrated in the FIR is concocted and not believable, by bringing out some discrepancies about the time of lodging the FIR and the manner in which the FIR was drawn and investigation proceeded, the same are inconsequential for the following reasons. The FIR disclosed that the information was received at 5.00 P.M. at the Police Station, but P.W.3 in his evidence stated that the FIR was lodged at 6.00 P.M. at the spot of the occurrence when the Police arrived at their village. Since the distance between the Police Station and the place of occurrence is three kilometers, it must have taken some time for the Police to reach at the spot after making Station Diary Entry. The marginal difference of time in lodging FIR could not be a ground to disbelieve the prosecution story. Smt. Biswal relying upon the statement of P.W. 3 to the effect that the Police examined P.W.3 first and thereafter, lodged an FIR (Exhibit-1), submits that the FIR was lodged after deliberation of P.W.3 with the Police, which makes both the extra-judicial confession as well as the FIR unbelievable. Further, she submitted that though P.W.4 stated that he and Faguni went to the spot after hearing alarm, Faguni was not examined. It is the trite law that it is not the quantity but the quality of evidence that is to be considered to establish a charge against the accused. Non-examination of Faguni does not in any way affect the credibility of the prosecution story which is otherwise established beyond any reasonable doubt. Further, the discrepancies that Smt. Biswal pointed out at the time of argument, are not material to disbelieve the case of the prosecution. Smt. Biswal further pleaded that there are lapses in the investigation, which makes the conviction vulnerable. Further, the discrepancies that Smt. Biswal pointed out at the time of argument, are not material to disbelieve the case of the prosecution. Smt. Biswal further pleaded that there are lapses in the investigation, which makes the conviction vulnerable. However, she could not point out any such lapses or loopholes in the investigations, which would make the case of the prosecution vulnerable. 15. Smt. Biswal submitted that although the appellant led to recovery of M.O.I, which is alleged to be the weapon of offence, it cannot be conclusively and distinctly held that the M.O.I was used for committing murder of the deceased. Admittedly, the appellant led the I.O. to recovery M.O.1, which was recovered from the house of the appellant kept under a plastic gunny bag (basta). P.W. 4 was a witness to the entire process of recovery. He corroborated the case of the prosecution. He also identified M.O.1 in Court. The Medical Officer (P.W.10), on requisition by the Police, examined M.O.I on 15.10.2004. In her report (Ext.11), she opined that she examined the knife having a bamboo handle (M.O.I) with stain looking like blood was present at various places on its surface. M.O.I was having sharp edge on one side and blunt on the other. Further, comparing M.O.I with the postmortem report, she opined that the injuries on the dead body could be inflicted by M.O.I, the knife produced by the Police. This statement of the Medical Officer was not successfully challenged by the defence. The suggestion of defence put to P.W.10 (Medical Officer) to the effect that the injury could be possible by falling of a sharp cutting weapon was stoutly denied. In ultimate view of the matter, there can be no escape from the conclusion that the murder of the deceased was caused by inflicting injuries with M.O.I by appellant and none else. 16. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence. Accordingly, the same is confirmed and the appeal stands dismissed. Vinod Prasad, J. I agree