JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in both these appeals, the same have been taken up together and decided by this common judgment. 2. These appeals are instituted against the judgment and order dated 27.06.2012 rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge/First FTC, Haridwar. Appellants Ranvir and Krishan were charged with and tried under Section 364 IPC in S.T. No.296/2006. Appellant Vinod @ Pappu was charged with and tried in S.T. No.426/2007 under Sections 364/201 IPC. Appellant Ranvir Singh was further charged and tried with in S.T. No.461/2008 u/s 25 of the Arms Act. 3. At the end of trial, each of the appellants, namely, Ranvir, Krishan and Vinod @ Pappu, was convicted for the offences u/s 364/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo one year additional imprisonment. All the appellants were further convicted u/s 201/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo three years’ R.I. with fine of Rs.2,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo six months’ additional imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 4. However, appellant Ranvir was acquitted from the charge of Section 25 Arms Act. 5. Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on 30.9.2005, PW1 Sanjiv Kumar lodged a report that on 25.9.2005 at about 10 AM, Ranvir Singh, one Gullu and one other person, who was known to him, came to his house. They entered into a conversation with his brother Sandeep @ Dimple. Thereafter, they left the house saying that they were going to the house of Mithlesh W/o Kanha in Budinakalan. He received his brother’s telephone on 26.9.2005. His brother told him that he was with Mithlesh in Budinakalan. Thereafter, his brother was not traceable. It is in these circumstances the report was lodged. 6. Appellants were, accordingly, arrested. A country made pistol and one live cartridge were recovered on the pointing out of appellant Ranvir. Police tried to retrieve the dead body of deceased Sandeep but the body was not traceable. 7. The matter was investigated and the Challan was put up after completing the necessary codal formalities. 8. Prosecution has examined as many as ten witnesses in support of its case. 9. Thereafter, the statements of the appellants were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. They have denied the case of prosecution. 7. The matter was investigated and the Challan was put up after completing the necessary codal formalities. 8. Prosecution has examined as many as ten witnesses in support of its case. 9. Thereafter, the statements of the appellants were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. They have denied the case of prosecution. 10. The Trial Court, by the impugned judgment, has convicted and sentenced the appellants, as aforesaid. Hence, these appeals. 11. Learned Counsel, appearing for the appellants, has vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. 12. On the other hand, learned Counsel, appearing for the State in both the appeals, has supported the judgment dated 27.6.2012. 13. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as the entire record. 14. PW1 Sanjeev Kumar is the material witness. According to him, Sandeep @ Dimple was his younger brother. He used to go to village Budinakalan Muzaffarnagar. His brother in law Ranvir along with Pappu had come to his house on 25.9.2005 at 10 AM. They entered into a conversation with Sandeep and took him to the house of Mithlesh at village Budinakalan. On 26.9.2005, he received his brother’s telephone that he was in Budinakalan along with Ranvir and others. Thereafter, his brother did not come back. He further deposed that his brother had an acquaintance with a lady named Mithlesh. According to him, Ranvir, Pappu and Krishan have killed his brother Sandeep. His brother was having illicit relations with Mithlesh. Ranvir also had illicit relations with Mithlesh. Ranvir wanted to marry Mithlesh. His brother persuaded him not to do so. Ranvir was arrested. He made an extrajudicial confession that they have killed Sandeep in village Hathi Karonda at the tubewell of Krishan and had thrown his body into the river. However, the body could not be retrieved. 15. In his cross-examination, he admitted that the missing report was filed on 30.9.2005. He had gone to the police station twice between 25th to 30th. He also admitted that in Ex.A-1, name of Pappu was not mentioned. He has admitted that when he received telephone call of his brother on 26.9.2005, his brother told him that he was at Mithlesh’s house. He has not mentioned in the report that Pappu and Ranvir were with his brother. His brother used to receive telephone calls of Mithlesh. He also admitted that in Ex.A-1, name of Pappu was not mentioned. He has admitted that when he received telephone call of his brother on 26.9.2005, his brother told him that he was at Mithlesh’s house. He has not mentioned in the report that Pappu and Ranvir were with his brother. His brother used to receive telephone calls of Mithlesh. Only his brother told him that Ranvir had illicit relations with Mithlesh. 16. PW2 Tejpal Singh testified that on 25.9.2005, Ranvir and Pappu had come to his village. They took away Sandeep for village Budinakalan. Sandeep never came back. On 25.10.2005, they had gone to Kishan Pal’s tubewell. Ranvir made an extrajudicial confession that he along with Krishan Pal and Pappu had killed Sandeep. The sandals and pant of Sandeep were got recovered by Ranvir, which were taken into custody. He further deposed that Ranvir had made an extrajudicial confession that they have killed Sandeep and his dead body was thrown in river Krishna. 17. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he was convicted and sentenced in a case u/s 302 IPC and he was on bail. He has also admitted categorically that when Ranvir and Pappu came to Sandeep’s house, he was not present. He saw them going at 9 AM. 18. PW3 Sohan Veer deposed that he was sitting in the drawing room of Tejpal, Pradhan. Pappu and Kishan came and stated that they along with Ranvir have committed a mistake by murdering Sandeep. Police was chasing them and they should be saved. He was also threatened by Kishan and Pappu. 19. In his cross-examination, he categorically admitted that when the appellant Pappu and Kishan had come to Tejpal’s drawing room, he had not raised any hue and cry and nor he tried to apprehend them. 20. PW4 Samarpal deposed that Pappu, Kishan and Ranvir have taken away Sandeep on 26.9.2005. Kishan met him at Narsan Bus Stand on 27.12.2005. Kishan made an extrajudicial confession that he along with Ranvir and Pappu had killed Sandeep and thrown his body into Krishan River. 21. In his cross-examination, he admitted that on 25.9.2005, he did not see Sandeep in the company of appellants. He was told about this fact by the villagers. He further admitted that when Krishan met him at Narsan Bus Stand, lot of people were present there. 22. 21. In his cross-examination, he admitted that on 25.9.2005, he did not see Sandeep in the company of appellants. He was told about this fact by the villagers. He further admitted that when Krishan met him at Narsan Bus Stand, lot of people were present there. 22. PW5 Satish Kumar deposed that on 27.9.2005, when he was going towards village Budinakalan, he came across appellants Ranvir, Pappu, Krishan and Sandeep @ Dimple in a Maruti 800 Car bearing registration number 4971. They stopped the car. He asked Dimple where he was going. He informed that he was going with them till Hathi Karoda and he would return by 5 PM. Thereafter, he told him to come back on a scooter. In the evening, he kept on waiting for Sandeep at Titabi Bus Stand. Appellants Ranvir, Pappu and Krishan came on the same Maruti Car. He enquired them about Sandeep. Ranvir and others stated that Sandeep had gone to his village. Thereafter, there was a rumour in the village that Sandeep has been killed by Ranvir, Krishan and Pappu. 23. PW6 S.I. Yogendra Singh deposed that Ranvir was arrested along with a country made pistol and one cartridge on 25.10.2005. In the cross-examination, he has stated that in the missing report, the name of Pappu was not mentioned. He had gone to Mithlesh’s village but she was not traceable. Thus, he could not record her statement. He has not recorded the statement of any relative of Mithlesh. He arrested the appellant Ranvir on 25.10.2005. 24. PW10 S.I. Jwahar Singh has prepared the spot map. 25. The present case is based on circumstantial evidence. The motive attributed by the prosecution is that Sandeep and Ranvir were having illicit relations with a lady, namely, Mithlesh of village Budinakalan. Sandeep used to persuade Ranvir not to marry Mithlesh. The case of the prosecution further is that Ranvir along with other appellants had come to the village. They took Sandeep with them towards Budinakalan. Sandeep called his brother Sanjeev Kumar and told that he was at Mithlesh’s house. However, it is not believable why Sandeep would go with Ranvir when both of them had illicit relations with Mithlesh. The statement of Mithlesh was never recorded. PW6 S.I. Yogendra Singh has testified that he had gone to Mithlesh’s village but she was not present. He has not even recorded the statement of relatives of Mithlesh. However, it is not believable why Sandeep would go with Ranvir when both of them had illicit relations with Mithlesh. The statement of Mithlesh was never recorded. PW6 S.I. Yogendra Singh has testified that he had gone to Mithlesh’s village but she was not present. He has not even recorded the statement of relatives of Mithlesh. In the initial missing report, name of appellant Vinod @ Pappu was not mentioned. Sandeep had gone missing on 25.10.2005 but the missing report was filed only on 30.10.2005. 26. PW1 Sandeep Kumar has deposed that his brother had illicit relations with Mithlesh. Ranvir also had illicit relations with Mithlesh. According to him, Ranvir has made an extrajudicial confession in the police station that that he along with other appellants have killed Sandeep and has thrown his dead body in Krishna River. His brother has told him that Ranvir also had illicit relations with Mithlesh. PW2 Tejpal Singh also deposed that the appellants had come to his house and requested him to compromise the matter. He further deposed that the recoveries were made in his presence. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he was convicted in a case u/s 302 IPC and was granted bail by the High Court. According to him, he saw the appellants coming to the house of Sandeep but in the cross-examination, he admitted that when Sandeep was taken, he was not present. 27. PW3 Sohan Veer deposed that the appellants had come to the house of Tej Pal, Pradhan and admitted their guilt. However, in the cross-examination, he deposed that he neither tried to apprehend the appellants and nor he raised any alarm. 28. PW4 Samarpal deposed that appellant Krishan has made an extrajudicial confession before him on 27.12.2005. However, in his cross-examination, he has admitted that he had not seen the appellants taking away Sandeep on 25.9.2005. He has also admitted that when Krishan met at Narsan Bus Stand, a lot of people were present. Police Outpost was also nearby. However, he also did not raise any alarm. 29. PW5 Satish Kumar deposed that he had gone from his village and had seen the appellants in the company of Sandeep in Maruti Car no.4971 on 27.9.2005. Sandeep told him that he would return at 5 PM and he should wait for him. However, Sandeep did not return. However, he also did not raise any alarm. 29. PW5 Satish Kumar deposed that he had gone from his village and had seen the appellants in the company of Sandeep in Maruti Car no.4971 on 27.9.2005. Sandeep told him that he would return at 5 PM and he should wait for him. However, Sandeep did not return. Statement of PW5 Satish Kumar was recorded at the police station on 5.11.2005. 30. The extrajudicial confession made by the appellants is a weak evidence without corroboration. It has come on record that when the extrajudicial confession was made by the appellants after visiting the house of witnesses, they have not raised any alarm. The witnesses have also not tried to nab the appellants. PW2 Tejpal Singh was not in Sandeep’s house when the appellants have visited his house. PW3 Sohan Veer has not tried to apprehend the appellants. PW4 Samarpal deposed that Krishan made the extrajudicial confession before him. He should have told the police immediately since the police outpost was only at a short distance. He did not raise any alarm. Statement of PW5 Satish Kumar, as noticed above, was recorded belatedly on 5.11.2005. It is not believable that when he had seen the deceased in the company of appellants in the morning, why he would wait for him till 5 o’clock in the evening. 31. 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. 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.” 32. 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 that the 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. 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.” 33. 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 an extrajudicial confession made by the accused, while in police custody, could not be proved against the accused. Their Lordships have held as under:- “7. Their Lordships have further held that an extrajudicial confession made by the accused, while in police custody, 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.” 34. 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 extrajudicial 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. 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. 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.” 35. 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 extra-judicial 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. 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.” 36. 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. 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.)” 37. 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 a case of circumstantial evidence, onus lies upon prosecution to prove the complete chain of events which must undoubtedly point towards guilt of accused. 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 a case of circumstantial evidence, onus lies upon prosecution to prove the complete chain of events which must undoubtedly point towards guilt of accused. When prosecution relies upon an extrajudicial confession, the 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. 38. 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 if the extrajudicial confession suffers from material discrepancies or inherent improbabilities and does not appear to be cogent, it may be difficult for the 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. 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. 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 extra-judicial 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. 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. [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 extra-judicial 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. 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.) 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 extra-judicial 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. 39. In the instant case, the motive, as discussed hereinabove, is that Ranvir and Sandeep were entangled with one girl, namely, Mithlesh. If that was so, in that eventuality, it was necessary for the Investigating Officer to record the statement of that lady Mithlesh. 39. In the instant case, the motive, as discussed hereinabove, is that Ranvir and Sandeep were entangled with one girl, namely, Mithlesh. If that was so, in that eventuality, it was necessary for the Investigating Officer to record the statement of that lady Mithlesh. PW6 S.I. Yogendra Singh has deposed that he had gone to the house of Mithlesh but she was not available. He should have waited for her or made enquiries where she had gone. Even PW1 Sanjeev has testified that in the search of his brother, he had gone to Mithlesh’s house on 29.9.2005 where she was found present. The dead body of Sandeep was never recovered by the police. 40. Thus, in light of the aforesaid circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the chain connecting the appellants with the crime is incomplete. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt for the offences under which they were charged. There are gaps in the prosecution case as well. 41. Accordingly, both the appeals are allowed. Judgment and order, under challenge, is quashed and set aside. Appellants are acquitted of the charges framed against them. They are already on bail. They need not to surrender. Their bail bonds and sureties are discharged. 42. Let a copy of this judgment along with the LCR be transmitted to the Court below for information.