JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. Since the common questions of law and facts are involved in the above numbered appeals, hence these are being taken together and are adjudicated by this common judgment. 2. The Criminal Appeal No.245 of 2012 and Criminal Appeal No.275 of 2012 are instituted against the judgment dated 27.08.2012 rendered by learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Rishikesh in Sessions Trial No.30 of 2007, whereby the accused namely Vipin Mehta, Anil, Subhash, Sonu, Kukku and Ritesh Chaudhary were charged with and tried for the offences punishable under Sections 302 read with 34 and 201 of IPC. Accused namely Vipin Mehta, Anil, Subhash and Sonu were convicted under Sections 302 read with 34 and 201 of IPC. Accused Kukku and Ritesh were acquitted by the trial court. The trial court has sentenced the accused/appellants (Vipin Mehta, Anil, Subhash and Sonu) to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and in case of default of payment of fine, to undergo imprisonment for a further period of four months. They were also sentenced to undergo two years simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/- under Section 201 IPC and in case of default of payment of fine, to undergo imprisonment for a further period of two months. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that PW-1 Ashok Tyagi lodged a report at Police Station Rishikesh. According to the first information report, his brother Gopal Tyagi was staying in the house of Satya Prakash Tyagi. He received a telephonic call on 09.11.2006 that the dead body of his brother was lying in the Barrage colony, Pashulok. This information was given to him by one Lallu Sharma. When he reached Rishikesh, he came to know that his brother was killed. He suspected that Anil, Subhash, Sonu and others were involved in the commission of offence. 4. Thereafter, the dead body was sent for post mortem examination. The Recoveries were made and case properties have been taken into possession. The cause of death was asphyxia as a result of strangulation. Investigation was completed and the Challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities. 5. The Prosecution, in order to prove its case examined as many as eleven witnesses. 6. The Recoveries were made and case properties have been taken into possession. The cause of death was asphyxia as a result of strangulation. Investigation was completed and the Challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities. 5. The Prosecution, in order to prove its case examined as many as eleven witnesses. 6. Thereafter, the statements of the accused/appellants were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They have denied the case of the prosecution and claimed to be tried. Accused/appellants were convicted and sentenced as noted hereinabove. Hence, the present criminal appeals. 7. Learned Advocates appearing for the accused/appellants, have vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused/appellants. 8. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State, has supported the impugned judgment dated 27.08.2012. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the judgment and record carefully. 10. PW-1 Ashok deposed that on 09.11.2006, he received a telephone call from one Lallu Sharma. He disclosed that the dead body of Gopal was lying in the Barrage Colony, Pashulok. He lodged the report. He put his signature on the report. He suspected that Anil and his companions had killed his brother Gopal Tyagi. In his cross examination, he stated that two cases of NDPS Act were registered against his brother. He has not seen anybody killing his brother. He also deposed that neither Vipin nor Satya Prakash was interrogated in his presence. 11. PW-2 Satya Prakash deposed that he was working as Mechanic. On 08.11.2006 he was sitting at his shop. Thereafter, he went to his house. He also went to police station on 11.11.2006. Few items were shown to him in the police station. No recovery was made in his presence. He recognized the dead body of Gopal. He did not identify the accused. He has not visited the spot where dead body was recovered. He was declared hostile. He was cross examined by learned A.D.G.C. He deposed that he did not recognize any accused. Neither any recovery was made nor contents of recovery memo were read over to him. His brother was also facing the case under Section 307 IPC. 12. PW-3 Pankaj Thakur deposed that no recovery was effected in his presence. He has not recognized the dead body. He did not identify the accused. He has not visited the spot where dead body was recovered. His brother was also facing the case under Section 307 IPC. 12. PW-3 Pankaj Thakur deposed that no recovery was effected in his presence. He has not recognized the dead body. He did not identify the accused. He has not visited the spot where dead body was recovered. He went to Police Station. He was declared hostile. He was cross examined by learned A.D.G.C. He failed to recognize the accused persons in the Court. He put signature on the documents. He signed on them without reading. 13. PW-4 Lallu Sharma has informed PW-1 Ashok Tyagi about the murder of his brother. 14. PW-5 Dr. A.K. Rastogi has conducted post mortem examination. According to him, deceased died due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation. 15. PW-6 Inspector Bhagat Singh deposed that accused persons were interrogated. They have admitted their guilt. 16. PW-7 Constable Shanti Prasad Dimari deposed that on 11.11.2006 he along with other police personnel have gone to arrest the accused persons. Accused persons have made extrajudicial confession during the course of interrogation. According to the accused, they killed Gopal in room No.103 of Surya Hotel which is near to the Bus Stand. They visited Surya Hotal from where clutch wire and punch were recovered along with underwear of the deceased. Accused confessed that deceased was killed by clutch wire. 17. PW-8 S.S.I. Vijay Chandra deposed that the accused persons were arrested and brought to the police station. Accused were interrogated. They have made extrajudicial confession. He visited room No.103 of Surya Hotel where deceased was killed. The accused made a statement which was written by S.I. S.N. Pandey. He also signed the same on which accused have confessed their guilt. The recovery was effected from the room No.103 of the Surya Hotel. 18. PW-9 S.I. G.D. Bhatt deposed that Vipin Mehta has made an extrajudicial confession. Accused told that deceased used to come this Hotel and demand liquor. They were fed up with him. Thereafter, they hatched a conspiracy. When deceased came in room No.103 and he was killed with the help of co-accused. Clutch wire and punch were recovered at his instance. 19. PW-10 S.S.I. Diwan Singh also deposed that accused Vipin Mehta was interrogated and he confessed his crime. The clutch wire and punch along with underwear of the deceased were recovered from the room. 20. When deceased came in room No.103 and he was killed with the help of co-accused. Clutch wire and punch were recovered at his instance. 19. PW-10 S.S.I. Diwan Singh also deposed that accused Vipin Mehta was interrogated and he confessed his crime. The clutch wire and punch along with underwear of the deceased were recovered from the room. 20. The case of the prosecution is entirely based on circumstantial evidence and it is necessary for the prosecution to complete the entire chain to ensure that all the circumstances must exclusively indicate towards the guilt of the accused. According to the prosecution, motive attributed is that deceased used to come to the Surya Hotel and insisted for liquor. Therefore, they hatched conspiracy to kill him. It is not believable that a person would be killed only on the ground that he used to come to the hotel and asked for liquor. No cogent evidence has been led to prove this fact by the prosecution. Prosecution has also relied on the extrajudicial confession made by the accused before PW-6 Bhagat Singh, PW-7 Shanti Prasad Dimiri, PW-8 Vijay Chandra, PW-9 G.D. Bhatt and PW-10 S.S.I. Diwan Singh. The extrajudicial confession was made by the accused while in the custody of the police. Thus, this extrajudicial confession cannot be read into evidence as per Sections 25 & 26 of the Indian Evidence Act. 21. Learned Government Advocate has vehemently argued that recoveries were effected at the instance of the accused after interrogation. Neither PW-2 Satya Prakash nor PW-3 Pankaj Thakur have supported the case of the prosecution. According to them, no recovery was effected in their presence. Both of them were declared hostile. Prosecution has not led any evidence to prove that there was enmity between Anil and deceased. Prosecution has failed to complete entire chain of evidence. There are gaps in the story of the prosecution. There is no independent witness. Prosecution has relied upon the extrajudicial confession without any corroboration. It is the settled law that extrajudicial confession is the weak evidence and it is required to be corroborated. 22. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in AIR 1974 SC 1545 , in the case of “Jagta vs. State of Haryana”, have held that the evidence about an extrajudicial confession is in the nature of things a weak piece of evidence. 22. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in AIR 1974 SC 1545 , in the case of “Jagta vs. State of Haryana”, have held that the evidence about an extrajudicial confession is in the nature of things a weak piece of evidence. If the same is lacking in probability there would be no difficulty in rejecting it. Their Lordships have held as under: - “14. So far as the alleged extra judicial confession of the accused is concerned, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of Ram Singh (PW 4). After having been taken through the evidence of that witness, we find the same to be lacking in credence and devoid of any ring of truth. The police was admittedly present in the office of the cooperative society in Village Farmana on the morning of January 15, 1972. We find no reason as to why the accused, instead of surrendering himself before the police, should go to the house of Ram Singh in Village Farmana, blurt out a confession before him and ask him to produce the accused before the police. Nothing has been shown to us as to why the accused could not himself go and appear before the police. We have mentioned above that an attempt has been made in this case to introduce the story of the recovery of ornaments belonging to Phul Pati deceased from the accused. The attempt of the investigating agency to introduce a false story about the removal of the ornaments of the deceased and their recovery from the accused would, in our opinion, also affect the credibility of the evidence regarding the extra judicial confession alleged to have been made to Ram Singh PW. The evidence about an extra judicial confession is in the nature of things a weak piece of evidence. If the same is lacking in probability as it is in the present case, there would be no difficulty in rejecting the same. We are, therefore, not prepared to place any reliance upon the evidence regarding the extra judicial confession of the accused.” 23. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in AIR 1984 SC 1622 , in the case of “Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra”, have held following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused based on circumstantial evidence can be said to be fully established. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in AIR 1984 SC 1622 , in the case of “Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra”, have held following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused based on circumstantial evidence can be said to be fully established. Their Lordships have held as under: - “152. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established: (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned “must or should” and not “may be” established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between “may be proved” and “must be or should be proved” as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra where the observations were made: [SCC para 19, p. 807: SCC (Cri) p. 1047] “Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.” (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. 153. These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence.” 24. 153. These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence.” 24. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in AIR 1990 SC 2140 , in the case of “Kishore Chand vs. State of Himachal Pradesh”, have held that the Court has to look into the surrounding circumstances and to find whether the extra-judicial confession is not inspired by any improper or collateral consideration or circumvention of the law suggesting that it may not be true one. For this purpose the Court must scrutinize all the relevant facts such as the person to whom the confession is made, the time and place of making it, the circumstances in which it was made and finally the actual words used by the accused. Their Lordships have further held that the extra-judicial confession was made when the accused was in the police and could not be proved against the accused. Their Lordships have held as under: - “7. The question that emerges, therefore, is whether the prosecution has established the three circumstantial evidences heavily banked upon by the prosecution in proof of the guilt of the appellant. The first circumstance is that the deceased and the appellant were last seen together by PW 7 and PW 8. From the evidence it is clear that there is no prior intimacy of the appellant and the deceased. They happened to meet perchance. Equally from the evidence it is clear that PW 7, the liquor shop owner and PW 8 who had liquor with the appellant and the deceased are also absolute strangers to the deceased and the appellant. Admittedly there is no identification parade conducted by the prosecution to identify the appellant by PW 7 or PW 8. The appellant was stated to have pointed out to PW 7 as the one that sold the liquor and PW 8 consumed it with him and the deceased. Therefore it is not reasonably possible to accept the testimony of PW 7 and PW 8 when they professed that they have seen the appellant and the deceased together consuming the liquor. It is highly artificial and appears on its face a make believe story. The next piece of evidence is the alleged extra-judicial confession made by the appellant to PW 10. It is highly artificial and appears on its face a make believe story. The next piece of evidence is the alleged extra-judicial confession made by the appellant to PW 10. An unambiguous extra-judicial confession possesses high probative value force as it emanates from the person who committed the crime and is admissible in evidence provided it is free from suspicion and suggestion of its falsity. But in the process of the proof of the alleged confession the court has to be satisfied that it is a voluntary one and does not appear to be the result of inducement, threat or promise envisaged under Section 24 of the Evidence Act or was brought about in suspicious circumstances to circumvent Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, the court has to look into the surrounding circumstances and to find whether the extra-judicial confession is not inspired by any improper or collateral consideration or circumvention of the law suggesting that it may not be true one. For this purpose the court must scrutinise all the relevant facts such as the person to whom the confession is made, the time and place of making it, the circumstances in which it was made and finally the actual words used by the accused. Extra-judicial confession if found to be voluntary, can be relied upon by the court along with other evidence on record. Therefore, even the extra-judicial confession will also have to be proved like any other fact. The value of the evidence as to the confession depends upon the veracity of the witness to whom it is made and the circumstances in which it came to be made and the actual words used by the accused. Sometimes it may not be possible to the witness to reproduce the actual words in which the confession was made. For that reason the law insists on recording the statement by a Judicial Magistrate after administering all necessary warnings to the accused that it would be used as evidence against him. 8. Admittedly PW 10 and the appellant do not belong to the same village. From the narrative of the prosecution story it is clear that PW 27, and PW 10 came together and apprehended the appellant from his village and was taken to Jassur for identification. 8. Admittedly PW 10 and the appellant do not belong to the same village. From the narrative of the prosecution story it is clear that PW 27, and PW 10 came together and apprehended the appellant from his village and was taken to Jassur for identification. After he was identified by PW 7 and PW 8 it was stated that he was brought back to Gaggal village of PW 10 and was kept in his company and PW 27 left for further investigation. Section 25 of the Evidence Act provides that no confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence. Section 26 provides that no confession made by any person while he is under custody of the police officer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of a magistrate, shall be proved as against such person. Therefore, the confession made by an accused person to a police officer is irrelevant by operation of Section 25 and it shall (sic not) be proved against the appellant. Likewise the confession made by the appellant while he is in the custody of the police shall not be proved against the appellant unless it is made in the immediate presence of the magistrate, by operation of Section 26 thereof. Admittedly the appellant did not make any confession in the presence of the magistrate. The question, therefore, is whether the appellant made the extra-judicial confession while he was in the police custody. It is incredible to believe that the police officer, PW 27, after having got identified the appellant by PW 7 and PW 8 as the one last seen in the company of the deceased would have left the appellant without taking him into custody. It is obvious, that with a view to avoid the rigour of Sections 25 and 26, PW 27 created an artificial scenario of his leaving for further investigation and kept the appellant in the custody of PW 10, the Pradhan to make an extra-judicial confession. Nothing prevented PW 27 to take the appellant to a Judicial Magistrate and have his confession recorded as provided under Section 164 of the CrPC which possesses great probative value and affords an unerring assurance to the court. Nothing prevented PW 27 to take the appellant to a Judicial Magistrate and have his confession recorded as provided under Section 164 of the CrPC which possesses great probative value and affords an unerring assurance to the court. It is too incredulous to believe that for mere asking to tell the truth the appellant made voluntarily confession to PW 10 and that too sitting in a hotel. The other person in whose presence it was stated to have been made was not examined to provide any corroboration to the testimony of PW 10. Therefore, it would be legitimate to conclude that the appellant was taken into the police custody and while the accused was in the custody, the extra-judicial confession was obtained through PW 10 who accommodated the prosecution (sic appellant). Thereby we can safely reach an irresistible conclusion that the alleged extra-judicial confession statement was made while the appellant was in the police custody. It is well settled law that Sections 25 and 26 shall be construed strictly. Therefore, by operation of Section 26 of the Evidence Act, the confession made by the appellant to PW 10 while he was in the custody of the police officer (PW 27) shall not be proved against the appellant. In this view it is unnecessary to go into the voluntary nature of the confession etc.” 25. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 1972 (3) SCC 759 , in the case of “Kahim Beg & another vs. State of U.P.”, have held that extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence. Their Lordships have held as under:- “18. We may now deal with the evidence regarding the extra-judicial confession of the two accused to Mohammad Nasim Khan (PW 4) and the recovery of ornaments belonging to the deceased from the two accused. It is primarily upon these two pieces of prosecution evidence that the conviction of the accused has been based. So far as the confession to Mohd. Nasim Khan is concerned, we find that, according to the said witness, the two accused came to him at his house in Sakunpur on August 4, 1969 and told him about their having raped and killed the daughter of Ramjas by strangulating her as well as regarding the removal of her ornaments. Mohammad Nasim Khan belongs to another village. Nasim Khan is concerned, we find that, according to the said witness, the two accused came to him at his house in Sakunpur on August 4, 1969 and told him about their having raped and killed the daughter of Ramjas by strangulating her as well as regarding the removal of her ornaments. Mohammad Nasim Khan belongs to another village. There was no history of previous association between the witness and the two accused as may justify the inference that the accused could repose confidence in him. In the circumstances, it seems highly improbable that the two accused would go to Mohammad Nasim Khan and blurt out a confession. It is also not clear as to why the two accused should try to run away on seeing the police party coming with Mohammad Nasim Khan if Mohammad Nasim Khan had gone to the police at the request of the accused. According to Mohammad Nasim Khan, Gur Sewak PW was with the police Sub-Inspector when the Sub-Inspector came with Mohammad Nasim Khan to his house and apprehended the accused. The evidence of Ramjas PW, however, shows that Gur Sewak PW went with Ramjas to the mortuary on the night between 3 and 4 August, 1969 and that on August 4, 1969 Sur Sewak remained with Ramjas throughout the day at Rae Bareli. It was on August 5, 1969 that, according to Ramjas, he and Gur Sewak returned to their village after throwing the dead body of Kesh Kali in Sain river. It would thus appear that Ramjas PW who, being the father of the deceased, had no particular reason to damage the prosecution case and to support the accused has contradicted Mohammad Nasim Khan on the point that Gur Sewak PW was with the police Sub-Inspector on August 4, 1969. The fact that Mohammad Nasim Khan has deposed regarding the presence of Gur Sewak with the police Sub-Inspector with a view to support. the prosecution case even though, according to Ramjas PW, Gur Sewak was not with the police Sub-Inspector shows that Mohammad Nasim Khan has scant regard for truth. The evidence of extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence. The evidence in this respect adduced by the prosecution in the present case is not only of a frail nature, it is lacking in probability and does not inspire confidence.” 26. The evidence of extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence. The evidence in this respect adduced by the prosecution in the present case is not only of a frail nature, it is lacking in probability and does not inspire confidence.” 26. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in 1997 (8) SCC 158 , in the case of “Pakkirisamy vs. State of T.N.”, have held that it is a rule of caution that the court would generally look for an independent reliable corroboration before placing any reliance upon an extrajudicial confession. Their Lordships have held as under:- “8. Mr Murlidhar, learned counsel then contended that it is well settled that the evidence of extra-judicial confession is a weak type of evidence and ordinarily the court would be slow to accept such type of evidence. He therefore, urged that Ex. P-8 be left out of consideration. We are unable to accept this broad proposition put forth on behalf of the appellant. It is well settled that it is a rule of caution where the court would generally look for an independent reliable corroboration before placing any reliance upon such extra-judicial confession. It is no doubt true that extra-judicial confession by its very nature is rather a weak type of evidence and it is for this reason that a duty is cast upon the court to look for corroboration from other reliable evidence on record. Such evidence requires appreciation with a great deal of care and caution. If such an extra-judicial confession is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, needless to state that its credibility becomes doubtful and consequently it loses its importance. The same principle has been enunciated by this Court in Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we hold that the courts below committed no error in relying upon Ex. P-8 as the same is corroborated from several other proved circumstances.” 27. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2009 (8) SCC 383 , in the case of “State of Andhra Pradesh vs. S. Swarnalatha & others”, have held that extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence, although in given situations reliance can be placed thereupon. Their Lordships have held as under: - “16. PW 6 admitted that prior to the making of confession to him, Accused 1 never talked to him. Their Lordships have held as under: - “16. PW 6 admitted that prior to the making of confession to him, Accused 1 never talked to him. Why she, instead of her husband, would confide in PW 6, is beyond all comprehension. In the aforementioned situation, the extra-judicial confession purported to have been made by Accused 1 to PW 6 becomes doubtful. Extra-judicial confession as is well known is a weak piece of evidence, although in given situations reliance thereupon can be placed. (See State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony, SCC p. 517, para 15 and State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram, SCC p. 262, para 14.)” 28. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2012 (6) SCC 403 , in the case of “Sahadevan & another vs. State of Tamil Nadu”, have held that in case of circumstantial evidence, onus lies upon prosecution to prove complete chain of events which must undoubtedly point towards guilt of accused. When prosecution relies upon an extra-judicial confession court has to examine the same with a greater degree of care and caution. Their Lordships have held as under: - “13. There is no doubt that in the present case there is no eye-witness. It is a case based upon circumstantial evidence. In case of circumstantial evidence, the onus lies upon the prosecution to prove the complete chain of events which shall undoubtedly point towards the guilt of the accused. Furthermore, in case of circumstantial evidence, where the prosecution relies upon an extra-judicial confession, the court has to examine the same with a greater degree of care and caution.” 29. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2012 (6) SCC 403 , in the case of “Sahadevan & another vs. State of Tamil Nadu”, have held if extrajudicial confession suffers from material discrepancies or inherent improbabilities and does not appear to be cogent, it may be difficult for court to base a conviction on such a confession. Their Lordships have held as under: - “14. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence. Wherever the court, upon due appreciation of the entire prosecution evidence, intends to base a conviction on an extra-judicial confession, it must ensure that the same inspires confidence and is corroborated by other prosecution evidence. Their Lordships have held as under: - “14. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence. Wherever the court, upon due appreciation of the entire prosecution evidence, intends to base a conviction on an extra-judicial confession, it must ensure that the same inspires confidence and is corroborated by other prosecution evidence. If, however, the extra-judicial confession suffers from material discrepancies or inherent improbabilities and does not appear to be cogent as per the prosecution version, it may be difficult for the court to base a conviction on such a confession. In such circumstances, the court would be fully justified in ruling such evidence out of consideration. 15. Now, we may examine some judgments of this Court dealing with this aspect. 15.1. In Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab this Court stated the principle that: (SCC p. 265, para 10) “10. An extra-judicial confession by its very nature is rather a weak type of evidence and requires appreciation with a great deal of care and caution. Where an extra-judicial confession is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, its credibility becomes doubtful and it loses its importance.” 15.2. In Pakkirisamy v. State of T.N. the Court held that: (SCC p. 162, para 8) “8. … It is well settled that it is a rule of caution where the court would generally look for an independent reliable corroboration before placing any reliance upon such extra-judicial confession.” 15.3. Again in Kavita v. State of T.N. the Court stated the dictum that: (SCC p. 109, para 4) “4. There is no doubt that convictions can be based on extrajudicial confession but it is well settled that in the very nature of things, it is a weak piece of evidence. It is to be proved just like any other fact and the value thereof depends upon the veracity of the [witnesses] to whom it is made.” 15.4. While explaining the dimensions of the principles governing the admissibility and evidentiary value of an extra-judicial confession, this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram stated the principle that: (SCC p. 192, para 19) “19. An extra-judicial confession, if voluntary and true and made in a fit state of mind, can be relied upon by the court. The confession will have to be proved like any other fact. An extra-judicial confession, if voluntary and true and made in a fit state of mind, can be relied upon by the court. The confession will have to be proved like any other fact. The value of the evidence as to confession, like any other evidence, depends upon the veracity of the witness to whom it has been made.” The Court further expressed the view that: (SCC p. 192, para 19) “19. … Such a confession can be relied upon and conviction can be founded thereon if the evidence about the confession comes from the mouth of witnesses who appear 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 an untruthful statement to the accused.…” 15.5. In Aloke Nath Dutta v. State of W.B. the Court, while holding the placing of reliance on extra-judicial confession by the lower courts in absence of other corroborating material as unjustified, observed: (SCC pp. 265-66, paras 87 & 89) “87. Confession ordinarily is admissible in evidence. It is a relevant fact. It can be acted upon. Confession may under certain circumstances and subject to law laid down by the superior judiciary from time to time form the basis for conviction. It is, however, trite that for the said purpose the court has to satisfy itself in regard to: (i) voluntariness of the confession; (ii) truthfulness of the confession; and (iii) corroboration. * * * 89. A detailed confession which would otherwise be within the special knowledge of the accused may itself be not sufficient to raise a presumption that confession is a truthful one. Main features of a confession are required to be verified. If it is not done, no conviction can be based only on the sole basis thereof.” 15.6. Accepting the admissibility of the extra-judicial confession, the Court in Sansar Chand v. State of Rajasthan held that: (SCC p. 611, paras 29-30) “29. There is no absolute rule that an extra-judicial confession can never be the basis of a conviction, although ordinarily an extra-judicial confession should be corroborated by some other material. Accepting the admissibility of the extra-judicial confession, the Court in Sansar Chand v. State of Rajasthan held that: (SCC p. 611, paras 29-30) “29. There is no absolute rule that an extra-judicial confession can never be the basis of a conviction, although ordinarily an extra-judicial confession should be corroborated by some other material. [Vide Thimma and Thimma Raju v. State of Mysore, Mulk Raj v. State of U.P., Sivakumar v. State (SCC paras 40 and 41 : AIR paras 41 and 42), Shiva Karam Payaswami Tewari v. State of Maharashtra and Mohd. Azad v. State of W.B.] 30. In the present case, the extrajudicial confession by Balwan has been referred to in the judgments of the learned Magistrate and the Special Judge, and it has been corroborated by the other material on record. We are satisfied that the confession was voluntary and was not the result of inducement, threat or promise as contemplated by Section 24 of the Evidence Act, 1872.” 15.7. Dealing with the situation of retraction from the extra-judicial confession made by an accused, the Court in Rameshbhai Chandubhai Rathod v. State of Gujarat held as under: (SCC pp. 772-73, para 53) “53. It appears therefore, that the appellant has retracted his confession. When an extra-judicial confession is retracted by an accused, there is no inflexible rule that the court must invariably accept the retraction. But at the same time it is unsafe for the court to rely on the retracted confession, unless the court on a consideration of the entire evidence comes to a definite conclusion that the retracted confession is true.” 15.8. Extra-judicial confession must be established to be true and made voluntarily and in a fit state of mind. The words of the witnesses must be clear, unambiguous and should clearly convey that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime. The extra-judicial confession can be accepted and can be the basis of conviction, if it passes the test of credibility. The extra-judicial confession should inspire confidence and the court should find out whether there are other cogent circumstances on record to support it. (Ref. Sk. Yusuf v. State of W.B. and Pancho v. State of Haryana.) The principles 16. The extra-judicial confession can be accepted and can be the basis of conviction, if it passes the test of credibility. The extra-judicial confession should inspire confidence and the court should find out whether there are other cogent circumstances on record to support it. (Ref. Sk. Yusuf v. State of W.B. and Pancho v. State of Haryana.) The principles 16. Upon a proper analysis of the above-referred judgments of this Court, it will be appropriate to state the principles which would make an extra-judicial confession an admissible piece of evidence capable of forming the basis of conviction of an accused. These precepts would guide the judicial mind while dealing with the veracity of cases where the prosecution heavily relies upon an extrajudicial confession alleged to have been made by the accused: (i) The extra-judicial confession is a weak evidence by itself. It has to be examined by the court with greater care and caution. (ii) It should be made voluntarily and should be truthful. (iii) It should inspire confidence. (iv) An extra-judicial confession attains greater credibility and evidentiary value if it is supported by a chain of cogent circumstances and is further corroborated by other prosecution evidence. (v) For an extra-judicial confession to be the basis of conviction, it should not suffer from any material discrepancies and inherent improbabilities. (vi) Such statement essentially has to be proved like any other fact and in accordance with law. 30. Consequently, in view of the above discussion made hereinabove, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 31. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed. Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 27.08.2012 rendered by learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Rishikesh in Sessions Trial No.30 of 2007 is set aside. The accused/appellants namely Vipin Mehta, Anil, Subhash and Sonu are acquitted of the charges framed against them. Accused/appellants are already on bail. They need not to surrender. Their bail bonds and sureties are discharged. 32. Let a copy of this judgment along with lower court record be transmitted to the court below for compliance of the judgment forthwith.