JUDGEMENT : S. NAGAMUTHU, J. The appellant is the Accused No.2 in S.C.No.30 of 2016 on the file of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Erode, Erode District. A1 is one Mrs. Ranjitha. The trial court framed two charges. The first charge was under Section 302 of IPC [Two counts] as against both A1 and A2 and the second charge was under Section 203 of IPC against A2 alone. The trial court, by judgement dated 28.02.2017, convicted both A1 and A2/the appellant herein for offences under Section 302 of IPC [Two counts] and also convicted A2 for offence under 203 of IPC and sentenced A1 to undergo imprisonment for life for each count for offence under Section 302 of IPC [Two counts] and sentenced A2 to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for each count in default to suffer imprisonment for a period of six months for each count for offence under Section 302 of IPC [Two counts] and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer imprisonment for a period of three months for offence under Section 203 of IPC. The trial court has not mentioned the description of imprisonment in case of default of fine. The sentences imposed on both A1 and A2 have been ordered to run concurrently. Challenging the conviction and sentences imposed on A2, she is before this court with this criminal appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:- A1 is the daughter of A2. They were residing at Kengampalayam, Gangapuram Village in Erode Taluk. A1 was married to one Easwaran. Through the said wedlock, they had two male children by name (1) Nithish, aged 5 years and (2) Anbarasan, aged 2 years. A1 had misunderstanding with her husband and therefore, her husband (P.W.1) was residing at Chennanayakkanur village. 3. A1 had developed illicit intimacy with one Anbu @ Anbalagan. According to the case, the presence of children [hereinafter referred to as "D1" and "D2"] was a hindrance for A1 to have illicit relationship with Anbu @ Anbalagan. Therefore, she decided to do away with both her children. 4. It is the further case of the prosecution that when A1 informed her plot to A2, A2 initially hesitated, but, later on, she also agreed. Therefore, she decided to do away with both her children. 4. It is the further case of the prosecution that when A1 informed her plot to A2, A2 initially hesitated, but, later on, she also agreed. Accordingly, A1 and A2 decided to kill both the children by mixing organophosphorus poison in the food and make them to eat. Accordingly, around 01.00 p.m. on 05.08.2015, A2 mixed organophosphorus poison in the food and gave the same to A1. A1, in turn, gave the poisonous food to both the children. The children were then made to sleep. A1 and A2 threw the remaining poisonous food and the poison into a nearby water-body. Around 02.00 p.m. both the children died at the house of the accused. 5. Pretending ignorance, A1 and A2 immediately took both D1 and D2 to a nearby hospital as though their endeavour was to save them. They told the doctor at the Erode Government Hospital that due to some unknown reasons both D1 and D2 had become unconscious. On examining both D1 and D2, the doctor declared them dead. 6. Thereafter, A2 went to Chithode Police Station and made a complaint (Ex.P.21) at 10.00 p.m. on 05.08.2015. On the said complaint, the present case was registered in Crime No.304 of 2015 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. [Double Death] by the Special Sub Inspector of Police [P.W.13]. Ex.P.22 is the FIR. Then, he handed over the case diary to the Inspector of Police for investigation. 7. The case was taken up for investigation by P.W.14. At 10.30 p.m. he visited the house of the accused, prepared an observation mahazar and a rough sketch at the place of occurrence. Then, he conducted inquest on the dead bodies of both D1 and D2 in the presence of panchayatars one after the other. Then, he forwarded the dead bodies to the government hospital for postmortem. 8. P.W.8, Dr. Kalanjiya Rani, conducted autopsy on the dead bodies of D1 at 08.55 a.m. on 06.08.2015. She found the following: "Body of a male child lies on its back, moderately built, nourished symmetrical, eyelids-closed, mouth and lips closed. Frothy secretion present under both nostril. Clenching of teeth. Tongue inside the mouth. No external injuries. Internal Examination: Ribs-Intact. Heart 110 gm. Chambers empty. Lungs right 220 grams, left 200 grams - congested. Hyoid bone - preserved. She found the following: "Body of a male child lies on its back, moderately built, nourished symmetrical, eyelids-closed, mouth and lips closed. Frothy secretion present under both nostril. Clenching of teeth. Tongue inside the mouth. No external injuries. Internal Examination: Ribs-Intact. Heart 110 gm. Chambers empty. Lungs right 220 grams, left 200 grams - congested. Hyoid bone - preserved. Stomach and contents - contains 50 ml of partially digested food particles (rice) mixed with black colour semisolid substance with no specific odour. Stomach - mucosa congested shows patchy haemorrhage. Liver - 800 grams. Spleen - 60 grams. Kidney - each 50 grams congested. Bladder - filled with 200 ml of clear urine. Skull - Intact. Brain 900 grams. Spinal cord - intact. She preserved the internal organs and hyoid bone of D1 and forwarded the same to the Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination. 9. Then, on the same day at 11.00 a.m. P.W.8 conducted autopsy on the dead body of D2. She found the following:- "Body of a male child lies on its back, symmetrical, eyelids-closed, mouth and lips closed. Tongue inside the mouth, moderately built and nourished. No external injuries. Internal Examination: Ribs-Intact. Heart 50 gm. Chambers empty. Lungs right 175 grams, left 160 grams - congested. Hyoid bone - preserved. Stomach and contents - contain 25 ml of partially digested food particles mixed with small amount of black colour semisolid substance with no odour. Stomach - mucosa congested shows patchy haemorrhage. Liver - 400 grams. Spleen - 40 grams. Kidney - each 30 grams congested. Intestine distended with gas. Bladder - filled with 150 ml of clear urine. Skull - Intact. Brain 500 grams. Spinal cord - intact. She preserved the internal organs of D2 and hyoid bone and forwarded the same to the Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination. The chemical analysis revealed that there were traces of organophosphorus poison in the internal organs of both D1 and D2. Based on the same, P.W.8, the doctor, gave opinion that the death of both D1 and D2 was due to organophosphorus poison. 10. P.W.14 collected the postmortem certificate and the final opinion of the doctor (P.W.8) who conducted autopsies on the dead bodies of both D1 and D2. When the investigation was in progress, according to P.W.14, A1 appeared before the Village Administrative Officer, Kengampalayam on 06.10.2015 and made a voluntary confession. 10. P.W.14 collected the postmortem certificate and the final opinion of the doctor (P.W.8) who conducted autopsies on the dead bodies of both D1 and D2. When the investigation was in progress, according to P.W.14, A1 appeared before the Village Administrative Officer, Kengampalayam on 06.10.2015 and made a voluntary confession. In the said confession, according to the case, A1 confessed that she along with A2 poisoned the children and killed. P.W.6, the Village Administrative Officer reduced the said confession into writing (Ex.P.3). A2 also appeared before P.W.6 along with A1. But, she did not make any confession. Then, along with a special report under Ex.P.4, he produced the accused before P.W.14. P.W.14, in turn, arrested the accused. Based on the extra judicial confession (Ex.P.3), P.W.14 altered the case into one under Sections 302 and 201 r/w 34 of IPC. While in custody, both the accused made voluntary confessions one after the other. Out of which, Mos.1 and 2 were recovered. The investigation was, thereafter, continued by his successor (P.W.15). P.W.15 examined few more witnesses, collected all the records and on completing the investigation, he laid charge sheet against both A1 and A2. 11. Based on the above materials, the trial court framed two charges as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgement. The accused denied the same. In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 15 witnesses were examined, 37 documents and 2 material objects were marked. 12. Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1, the husband of A1 has stated about the misunderstandings between him and A1. He has also stated that A1 had developed intimacy with one Anbu @ Anbagalan. P.W.2 is a neighbour of the accused. He has spoken about the preparation of observation mahazar and rough sketch at the place of occurrence by the police. P.W.3 is yet another neighbour of the accused. He has stated that around 05.00 p.m. on 05.08.2015 on hearing the alarm raised by the accused, he rushed to the house of the accused and then assisted them to take the children to the hospital. He has been treated as hostile. P.W.4 has also turned hostile. He has not stated anything against the accused. P.W.5 has spoken about the preparation of observation mahazar and rough sketch. He has been treated as hostile. P.W.4 has also turned hostile. He has not stated anything against the accused. P.W.5 has spoken about the preparation of observation mahazar and rough sketch. P.W.6, the Village Administrative Officer, has spoken about the extra judicial confession made by A1 in the presence of A2. He has further stated that he produced both A1 and A2 before P.W.14. He has also stated about the confessions made by the accused while in custody one after the other and the consequential recoveries of material objects on the confessions of A1 and A2 respectively. 13. P.W.7, the doctor, has stated that on 05.08.2015 around 07.00 p.m. both D1 and D2 were brought to the hospital for treatment. On examining D1 and D2, the doctor found them dead. P.W.8 has spoken about the postmortem conducted on the dead bodies of both D1 and D2 and her final opinion regarding the cause of death. P.W.9 was an Assistant Professor in the Department of Pathology. He examined the internal organs of D1 and D2 and found that there were ulceration of the mucosa with inflammation in the underlying lamina propris in the oesophagus and stomach. He issued Certificates (Exs.P.17 and 18 respectively]. P.W.10, an Expert from the Regional Forensic Sciences Laboratory, Coimbatore, has stated that he examined the internal organs of D1 and D2 and in the said chemical analysis, he found that there were organophosphorus poison in the internal organs of both D1 and D2. P.W.11, a Head Constable, has stated that he has handed over the FIR to the jurisdictional court as directed by the investigating officer. P.W.12, yet another Head Constable, has stated that he handed over the dead bodies of D1 and D2 to the doctor for postmortem as directed by the investigating officer. P.W.13 has spoken about the registration of the case. P.W.14 and P.W.15 have spoken about the investigation done and P.W.15 has further spoken about the filing of charge sheet against the accused. 14. When the above incriminating materials were put to both A1 and A2 under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. they denied the same as false. However, they did not choose to examine any witness nor did they mark any document on their side. Their defence was a total denial. 15. 14. When the above incriminating materials were put to both A1 and A2 under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. they denied the same as false. However, they did not choose to examine any witness nor did they mark any document on their side. Their defence was a total denial. 15. Having considered all the above, the trial court convicted and sentenced both A1 and A2/the appellant herein as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgement. Challenging the above said conviction and sentences, A2 is now before this Court with the present criminal appeal. 16. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/A2 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State and we have also perused the records carefully. 17. Admittedly, D1 and D2 were hardly aged 5 years and 2 years respectively. The chemical analysis conducted in the internal organs of both D1 and D2 had revealed that there were organophosphorus poison in their internal organs. The doctor, who conducted autopsy, did not find any other injury on the bodies of both D1 and D2. Based on the opinion of the chemical analyst, the doctor has opined that both D1 and D2 died due to organophosphorus poison. We find no reason to reject this opinion of the experts. Thus, we hold that both D1 and D2 died only due to consumption of organophosphorus poison. 18. It is the case of the prosecution that A1 and A2 had mixed organophosphorus poison in the food and made D1 and D2 to eat. In order to prove this fact, the prosecution relies only on the extra judicial confession (Ex.P.13) said to have been made by A1 to P.W.6 on06.10.2015. 19. The learned counsel for the appellant/A2 would submit that so far as A2 is concerned, the said extra judicial confession allegedly made by A1 cannot be the foundation for conviction in view of the specific provision contained in Section 30 of The Evidence Act. 20. We find force in the above said argument. As we have already narrated, there is no other evidence against A2. The law on the subject of confession of co-accused was dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kashmira v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1952 SC 159 wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the extra judicial confession of a co-accused cannot be the foundation to convict the other. The law on the subject of confession of co-accused was dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kashmira v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1952 SC 159 wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the extra judicial confession of a co-accused cannot be the foundation to convict the other. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the proper approach towards extra judicial confession of a co-accused is to keep the extra judicial confession of a co-accused aside and to marshal all other evidences against the accused and on such marshalling of other evidence, if the court is able to come to the conclusion that the accused is guilty, in order to strengthen the said conclusion, as a last resort, the extra judicial confession of the co-accused could also be looked into. Thus, the extra judicial confession of the co-accused has got a limited purpose and the same can never take the place of substantive piece of evidence. In the instant case, since there is no other evidence against A2 and since the so called extra judicial confession of A1 cannot be the foundation for convicting A2, she is entitled for acquittal. 21. So far as A1 is concerned, of course, she has not filed any appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that A1 could not make any appeal to this court out of poverty. In our considered view, poverty cannot be a reason for an aggrieved to have access to justice. In Dandu Lakshmi Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1999 [7] SCC 69. In paragraph 25, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:- 25. The mother of the appellant Narayanamma is languishing in jail at present pursuant to the conviction and sentence awarded to her in this case. Of course her conviction is not before us as she did not file any special leave petition. But this Court has set up a judicious precedent for the purpose of averting miscarriage of justice in similar situations. On the evaluation of a case, if this Court reaches the conclusion that no conviction of any accused is possible the benefit of that decision must be extended to his co-accused also though he has not challenged the order by means of an appeal petition to this Court. On the evaluation of a case, if this Court reaches the conclusion that no conviction of any accused is possible the benefit of that decision must be extended to his co-accused also though he has not challenged the order by means of an appeal petition to this Court. [vide Rajaram V. State of M.P.] [b] Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajaram V. State of M.P. Reported in 1994 [2] SCC 568, wherein in paragraph No.10, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- 10. Ram Sahai [accused 4] has not filed any appeal against his conviction and sentence. However, we find that his case is identical to the case of the appellants and there is no distinguishing feature. In our opinion, it is therefore appropriate that the benefit of our Judgment should also be made available to Ram Sahai. His conviction is also altered from the one u/s.302/149 IPC to one under section 304 Part II read with section 149 IPC. He is also sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000. In default to payment of fine, he shall suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year. The fine when realised from Ram Sahai shall be paid to PW 7 Sahodara Bai. [c] Similarly in Akhil Ali Jehangir Ali Sayyed V. State of Maharashtra reported in JT 2002 [2] SC 158, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after having referred to the Harbans Singh case, has held in paragraph No.8 as follows:- 8. After bestowing out anxious consideration on the fact situation in this case and also the spirit of Article 21 of the Constitution, we hereby order that the conviction passed on the second accused Jabbar shall also stand altered to section 304 part I and a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for ten years be awarded to him. This is done on a parity of reasoning and justice, otherwise glaring injustice would result as for him in a case where his role was by no means more serious than that of the present appellant who was A1 in this case. 10. In view of the said settled position of law, though, in the instant case, accused 4 to 8 have not made any appeal, the conviction and sentence imposed on them are also liable to be set aside. 10. In view of the said settled position of law, though, in the instant case, accused 4 to 8 have not made any appeal, the conviction and sentence imposed on them are also liable to be set aside. Applying the above said law to the facts of the present case, we have examined the evidence against A1 also though A1 has not made any appeal. 22. Admittedly, P.W.1, the husband of A1, was not living with A1. He was living separately in a different village. According to him, A1 had developed illicit intimacy with one Anbu @ Anbalagan. Assuming the same to be true, now, the question is, Could it be the sole basis to hold A1 guilty of the offence of murder? In our considered view, the answer is an emphatic "No". However, the prosecution relies on the extra judicial confession of A1 made to P.W.6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the said extra judicial confession can be the foundation to sustain the conviction of A1. It is the law that if the extra judicial confession inspires the confidence of the court, even in the absence of any corroboration from any other independent sources, the said extra judicial confession could be made the foundation for conviction. But, in this case, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the said extra judicial confession is shrouded with a lot of doubts. 23. We find force in the said argument. It is in evidence of the neighbours that A1 and A2 raised alarm on noticing that D1 and D2 were unconscious. This happened at 05.00 p.m. A2 in the complaint made to the police had stated that both D1 and D2 were playing outside their house. When they returned home, they complained of some trouble in their stomach. Believing that there would have been indigestion, A1 served rice mixed with coconut oil and salt. She also gave "Vicks Action 500" tablet mixing the same in water. It is quite common in the villages to make such kind of local treatment to the children. This part of the explanation offered by A2 that the children who were playing outside for a long time, returned home and complained of some trouble in their stomach was an indication that the children had some organophosphorus poison somewhere when they were playing. This part of the explanation offered by A2 that the children who were playing outside for a long time, returned home and complained of some trouble in their stomach was an indication that the children had some organophosphorus poison somewhere when they were playing. Had it been the intention of the accused to kill D1 and D2, they would not have given rice mixed with coconut oil and salt with a view to relieve them of stomach pain. Further, had it been the intention of the accused to kill D1 and D2, they would not have given water mixed with vicks action tablet with a view to relieve them from breathing trouble. Thus, the conduct of the accused in giving country treatment to the children would go a long way to show that they would not have administered organophosphorus poison at all to D1 and D2. 24. Both D1 and D2 were all along with A1 and A2. There is no evidence to show that at any point of time, A1 expressed that the children were the hindrance for her to continue her relationship with Anbu @ Anbalagan. It is also not in evidence that A2 also had similar view. When A1 and A2 were so affectionate towards D1 and D2, it is highly unbelievable that they would have decided to do away with the children. It is the explanation of A1 and A2 that the children were sleeping in the house for some time. At 02.00 p.m. they found the children motionless. Panicked by the same, they raised alarm which attracted the neighbours. Had it been the intention of A1 and A2 to do away with D1 and D2, they would not have raised alarm and taken them to the hospital in an attempt to save D1 and D2. Thus, the conduct of the accused from the beginning to the end would be consistent only with their innocence and not with their alleged guilt. This creates a doubt in the so-called extra judicial confession said to have been made by A1 to P.W.6. Further, it is not the evidence that A1 had any acquaintance with P.W.6. When that be so, it is also doubtful as to whether A1 would have chosen, a total stranger, to make such an extra judicial confession. Thus, the circumstances surrounding Ex.P.3, create doubt in the veracity of the evidence of P.W.6. Further, it is not the evidence that A1 had any acquaintance with P.W.6. When that be so, it is also doubtful as to whether A1 would have chosen, a total stranger, to make such an extra judicial confession. Thus, the circumstances surrounding Ex.P.3, create doubt in the veracity of the evidence of P.W.6. As has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kashmira Singh case [cited supra], when there are such doubts in the extra judicial confession, as a rule of prudence, the court should look for corroboration from any other independent sources. Since there is no other evidence to corroborate the extra judicial confession, we are of the view that it would not be safe to sustain the conviction of A1 also on the above alleged extra judicial confession alone. Thus, we hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against both A1 and A2 and so, they are entitled for acquittal. 25. In the result, (i) the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentences imposed on A2, the appellant herein, by the trial court are set aside and she is acquitted of both the charges. Fine amount already paid, if any, shall be refunded to her. Since it is reported that the appellant/A2 has been serving the sentences imposed on her by the trial, she is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless and otherwise her detention is required in connection with any other case. (ii) Though A1-Ranjitha has not made any appeal, we set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on her by the trial court and acquit her also from the charge levelled against her. Therefore, A1-Ranjitha is also directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if her detention is not required in connection with any other case.