JUDGMENT : Anjuli Palo, J. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/accused under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 22.01.2008 passed by the Session Judge, Seoni in Session Trial No.51/2007, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced for life imprisonment and under Section 201 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced for 5 years R.I. 2. In brief the the prosecution story is that the appellant is a near relative of the complainant Anita Bai. An illicit relationship developed between the appellant/accused and complainant Anita Bai (PW-1) due to which she became pregnant. Later, when her parents came to know that she was with a child, Panchayat was called. The fact and responsibility of the pregnancy was admitted by the appellant and at that time he had agreed to marry the complainant but later on the appellant fled away to Nagpur before the date of marriage. Anita Bai came to the house of the appellant and started living with his parents as they had accepted her as their daughter-in-law. After some time, Anita Bai (PW-1) delivered a daughter namely Preeti Pandre (since deceased). 3. On 17.01.2007 at about 8-9 am, complainant Anita Bai left for washing cloths, leaving her 8 months old baby child Preeti Pandre in the house. The appellant who was present there, is alleged to have committed the murder of Preeti, then took the body to a field and cremated her. The complainant on her return to the house at about 9:00 am enquired about the whereabouts of her daughter from the appellant who told her that he had committed the murder of their daughter (Preeti Pandre) and thereafter, cremated her. The complainant Anita Bai along with Soma (PW-6) went to police station Kurai, Seoni at around 4:00 pm and the marg intimation was registered (Ex. P/1). The police reached the spot of cremation where some burnt woods along with residue of bone and skull vault were found. The police seized the residue vide seizure memo (Ex. P/9). Later on, after investigation the marg was converted into FIR and offence under Section 302 and 201 of IPC was registered against the appellant. The appellant was arrested on 19.01.2017 and a bottle of kerosene oil was seized near the spot at the instance of the accused. The police seized the residue vide seizure memo (Ex. P/9). Later on, after investigation the marg was converted into FIR and offence under Section 302 and 201 of IPC was registered against the appellant. The appellant was arrested on 19.01.2017 and a bottle of kerosene oil was seized near the spot at the instance of the accused. All the seized items were sent to the Medical Institute for examination. The charge-sheet was filed and case was committed to the Trial Court. 4. The learned Trial Court, relying upon the circumstantial evidence and extra judicial confession of the appellant convicted him under Section 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him as aforementioned. 5. This appeal has been filed by the appellant on the grounds that the appellant has been falsely implicated by the complainant Anita Bai (PW-1). The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the chain of circumstance to hold the appellant guilty of the offence. There was no eye witness to prove the offence. It is further contended that the learned Trial Court had erroneously relied upon the prosecution case. No case is made out against the appellant under Section 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the appellant had prayed to set aside the impugned judgment, conviction and sentence and acquit him from the charges leveled against him. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record. 7. The point for determination in this case is, whether the Trial Court wrongly convicted the appellant on the basis of extra-judicial confession. 8. The background of this case is that Anita Bai (PW-1) and the appellant had a love affair due to which Anita Bai became pregnant and gave birth to their daughter Preeti Pandre. At the time of incident, she was residing at the appellant's house with the parents of the appellant along with her daughter who was aged about 8 months. These facts narrated by the Anita (PW-1) are corroborated by the Antram (DW-1) himself in paragraph 4 of his cross-examination as well as by Annu Bai (PW-4) and Balaram (PW-8), who are the sister and father of Anita Bai. Balaram (PW-8) had also deposed that he had called the Panchayat with regard to the relationship between Anita and the appellant where the appellant had admitted that he is the father of the child. Balaram (PW-8) had also deposed that he had called the Panchayat with regard to the relationship between Anita and the appellant where the appellant had admitted that he is the father of the child. Anita started residing with the father of the appellant who took care of Anita as well as her daughter but the appellant left his house and went to Nagpur. Soma (PW-6), village kotwar is an independent witness. He corroborated the testimony of Balaram (PW-8) with regard to holding Panchayat about the relationship of the appellant and Anita and matter was considered. Holding memo of the Panchayat (Exh. P/10) was seized vide seizure memo (P/18) in which the appellant also admitted that he was the father of the child and also agreed to marry Anita but instead he fled away to Nagpur. As per Soma (PW-6), Preeti was the daughter of the appellant. She was born at the appellant's house. The father of the appellant took care of Anita and her daughter in absence of appellant. As per Anita (PW-1), the appellant had not accepted to have fathered her child. 9. Anita Bai (PW-1) and Balaram (PW-8) both have deposed that the appellant came back to his house 2-3 days prior to the incident during 'sankranti'. Sankranti is observed on 14-15th January of every year and the incident took place on 17th January, 2007. No suggestion has been given by learned counsel for the appellant to Anita Bai (PW- 1) and Balaram (PW-8) that the appellant had not come from Nagpur to his home during or at the time of incident. Thus, the defence/plea of alibi taken by the appellant cannot be accepted. Further, the deceased was only 8 months old child. No one had enimity or motive to kill her. Testimony of Anita Bai (PW-1) is supported by other independent witness Soma (PW-6) village kotwar. Anita Bai had not only physical relationship with the appellant but also she was residing with his parents in his house. We find that she had no enimity with the appellant to falsely implicate him in the crime with regard to murder of their daughter. Anita Bai has clearly stated that on the date of incident at about 8:00 am she went out to wash cloths. At that time her daughter Preeti was sleeping at home and the appellant was also present there. Anita Bai has clearly stated that on the date of incident at about 8:00 am she went out to wash cloths. At that time her daughter Preeti was sleeping at home and the appellant was also present there. It is proved that Anita Bai (PW-1) mother of the deceased had lastly seen her daughter with the appellant. When she returned home, she did not find her daughter. She asked the appellant about the whereabouts of her daughter, the appellant replied that, “he took Preeti and burnt her at Kanhar Patti, go and see her”. Immediately, Anita (PW-1) went to Kanhar Patti. The place belonged to the appellant. She saw something burning at that place. The appellant told her that Preeti was not his child therefore he burnt her. This is the extra judicial confession of the appellant before his near relative. 10. After considering the entire evidence, we find that this confession is absolutely voluntary and without any compulsion or pressure. It is also found true because we do not find any reason or evidence on record to disbelieve the testimony of Anita Bai (PW-1). She is the mother of deceased and on the other hand she had love affair with the appellant due to which she left her parents' house. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the extra-judicial confession is a weak type of evidence. In the present case, there is no other corroborating evidence on record against the appellant. 11. The principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Rajaram, (2003) 8 SCC 180 that the extra judicial confession, if voluntary and true and made in fit case of mind, can be relied upon by the Court. The confession will have to be proved like any other threat. The value of the evidence as to confession, like any other evidence, depends upon the veracity of the witnesses to whom it has been made. The Court further expressed view that such confession can be relied upon and conviction can be founded thereon, if the evidence about the confession comes from the mouth of witnesses, who appeared to be unbiased, not even remotely inimical to the accused and in respect of whom nothing is brought out which may tend to indicate that he may have a motive of attributing and untruthful statement of the accused. 12. 12. Therefore, it cannot be accepted that extra judicial confession is a weak type of evidence and finding of conviction cannot be based on it. We do not agree with the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that there is no other evidence against the appellant. Soma (PW-6) who is an independent witness also corroborate the testimony of Anita (PW-1), that just after the incident Anita (PW-1) informed him about the murder of Preeti by the appellant. Thereafter, he also saw the place where some wood was burning. He went to the police station with Anita. His testimony is not rebutted in cross-examination. Learned counsel submitted that the deceased Preeti was ill. She died due to her illness therefore, her body was buried. But this is a case of burning of her body. Further, no oral or documentary evidence has been produced by the appellant to prove that Preeti died due to illness. 13. The appellant took different defence. He took the plea of alibi. On the other hand, a suggestion was given to Anita (PW-1) that she herself killed the deceased which shows that false defence was taken by the appellant. It is pertinent to note that the appellant was arrested on 19.01.2007 from his village Gram Sevan Kanhar, District Seoni and not from Nagpur. He had taken a false plea which was rightly considered by the learned Trial Court as an additional circumstance against the accused by placing reliance upon the case of Shankarlal Gyasilal Dixit Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1981 SC 765 . In the light of the above facts and circumstances, we also come to the conclusion that the appellant failed to establish plea of alibi. 14. S.K. Mishra (PW-12) Investigation Officer deposed that on the same date of incident marg report was lodged against the appellant by the Anita (PW-1). There is no contradiction between the marg intimation report and the testimony of Anita (PW-1). Such intimation was lodged against the appellant by name. After that, the police seized some bones of the deceased vide seizure memo Exh. P/9. S.K. Mishra (PW-12) also deposed that on the memorandum (Exh. P/5) of the appellant himself, a bottle of kerosene was seized vide seizure memo Exh. P/7, signed by the appellant and supported by Devendra Kumar Thakur (PW-3). After that, the police seized some bones of the deceased vide seizure memo Exh. P/9. S.K. Mishra (PW-12) also deposed that on the memorandum (Exh. P/5) of the appellant himself, a bottle of kerosene was seized vide seizure memo Exh. P/7, signed by the appellant and supported by Devendra Kumar Thakur (PW-3). R.S. Choudhary (PW-9) Finger Print Expert Inspector found the finger prints of the appellant over the kerosene bottle. No explanation was given by the appellant as to how the bottle was imprinted with his finger prints. Further, that the medico legal institute gave clear-cut finding that the bones which were sent by the police were of a child aged about 6-8 months vide letter Exh. P/16 and report Exh. P/24 which reveal that the burnt bone pieces were of human origin bearing the same individual of aged about 6-8 months. The learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon the case of State of Karnataka vs. M.V. Mahesh, (2003) 3 SCC 353 wherein it is held as under :- “Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Circumstantial evidence – Disappearance of B, wife of respondent R – Conviction of R and his father by trial court – Acquittal by High Court – Propriety – Circumstances relied on by trial court that : (i) R last seen with his wife, and (ii) false explanation given by R as to her disappearance, held on facts, not established - Recovery of human bones – Identity of the said bones as that of B established on the basis of DNA examination, held, not enough to prove the involvement of R in the murder of B – Absence of motive – Whether statement made by R really led to the discovery of bones, held, as doubtful – Prosecution case not found acceptable – Judgment of High Court upheld.” 15. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that without DNA test, it is not proved that the DNA of bones and the appellant were same. There is no issue before us that whether Preeti is the daughter of the appellant or not? Hence, in the absence of DNA Test, the prosecution case is not adversely affected. The cloth piece in burnt condition showing a circular noose is suggestive of strangulation. The aforesaid evidence, without any reasonable double involve only the appellant with the offence. 16. There is no issue before us that whether Preeti is the daughter of the appellant or not? Hence, in the absence of DNA Test, the prosecution case is not adversely affected. The cloth piece in burnt condition showing a circular noose is suggestive of strangulation. The aforesaid evidence, without any reasonable double involve only the appellant with the offence. 16. The learned Trial Court rightly considered the following circumstantial evidence against the appellant : That, the deceased was last seen with the accused and accused was present in the house where the infant deceased was sleeping, the fact was proved by the statement of Anita Bai (PW-1). (ii) The accused have motive and desire for killing the infant. The letter (Ex. P-10) dated 18.06.2006 was seized from Balaram (PW-8) who is the father of Anita Bai (PW-1). In this letter (Ex. P-10), it was accepted by Suman Lal Pandre, father of the accused that on account of physical relationship with the accused, Anita Bai became pregnant. They agreed for marriage but accused fled away. So Anita Bai (PW-1) resided in the house of the accused. This letter was signed by father of the accused Suman Lal and 12 other villagers as an attesting witness. But the accused suspected fidelity of Anita Bai (PW-1) and declined the deceased to be his own daughter, so this was the motive of crime which is proved by oral and documentary evidence. (iii) Dead body was secretly and clandestinely cremated without intimating others. It is proved that death was not natural then the obvious conclusion has to be that the death was homicidal. 17. We find that all the circumstances point out towards the guilt of the appellant/accused only. He had motive to kill Preeti Pandre as he had never accepted her to be his daughter. 18. In view of the aforesaid, the appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 19. Copy of this judgment along with the record be sent to the Court below for information.