JUDGMENT : Ananda Sen, J. This Criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 22nd March, 2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court IV, Garhwa, in Sessions Trial No. 93 of 2004 (arising out of Ranka P.S. Case No. 78 of 2003, corresponding to G.R. No. 716 of 2003), whereby the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life without fine. 2. The informant who is the son of accused Ram Briksh Singh lodged the fardbeyan, (on the basis of a hearsay information given by his own sister, namely, Parmila Kumari,) wherein he has stated that on 05.09.2003 when he returned from Barwadih, his sister told him that her father had killed her mother by giving farsa blows, thereafter with the help of the villagers the informant found the dead body of the mother in the field. He found sharp cut injuries on both hands and there was injury on the neck also. It is further stated that the accused had two wives and the deceased was the first wife. There was a dispute going on between the deceased and her husband in respect of partitioning the agricultural fields and other properties. The agricultural land was partitioned but the quarrel was going on in respect of partitioning other properties which resulted in this occurrence. In the First Information Report it has also been mentioned that the accused Ram Briksh Singh has voluntarily confessed his guilt before one Brij Bihari Singh that he has murdered the first wife by farsa. 3. The said fardbeyan was registered as Ranka P.S. Case No. 78 of 2003 corresponding to G.R. No. 716 of 2003 under Section 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code. The police, on the basis of the said fardbeyan and after registering the case started investigation. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against Ram Briksh Singh, the accused. After cognizance the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The charge was framed against the accused as he pleaded “not guilty”, and he claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined altogether eight witnesses. P.W.1-Pramila Kumari, is the daughter of the deceased. She deposed that her father (appellant) came with farsa and started assaulting her mother. The charge was framed against the accused as he pleaded “not guilty”, and he claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined altogether eight witnesses. P.W.1-Pramila Kumari, is the daughter of the deceased. She deposed that her father (appellant) came with farsa and started assaulting her mother. The first blow of farsa caused cut injury on right hand of her mother. The second blow cut the left hand, third blow was on the head of her mother, further, he dealt farsa blow on her neck, as a result of which the neck was completely severed. When her mother was wriggling, her father penetrated farsa in the lower part of her stomach, as result of which she died. P.W.2-Ramesh Singh, is the informant. He is the son of the deceased and the accused. He is a hearsay witness because he came to know about the occurrence from his sister Pramila Kumari ( P.W.1). P.W.3-is Brij Bihari Singh, who deposed that the appellant had confessed before him that he had killed his wife by inflicting sharp cut injuries. He also proved his signature on inquest report (Ext.1). He proved his signature on fard beyan (Ext.2). P.W.4 -Bihari Singh (hearsay witness), knew about the occurrence from P.W-1 (Parmila Kumari). P.W.-5-Ram Nath Singh, deposed that appellant killed his wife and has thrown the dead body in a pond. But in cross examination he deposed that he neither saw the occurrence nor the act of throwing the dead body in pond. P.W.-6-Nanhu Singh, deposed that appellant had murdered his wife (deceased) and threw the dead body in water. During cross examination, he has stated that neither he had seen the occurrence nor the act of throwing the dead body. P.W.-7, Dr. Dhirendra Kumar, is a medical officer. He had conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of deceased. He deposed that all the injuries may be caused by farsa and sufficient to cause death. He proved post mortem report (Ext-4). P.W.-8-Ravi Kant Sinha, is the investigating officer. He proved his signature on fardbeyan (Ext-6). He also proved inquest report (Ext7). 5. After closer of the evidence the accused was examined under Section 313 of the Cr. P.C. Defence did not adduce any evidence. 6. He proved post mortem report (Ext-4). P.W.-8-Ravi Kant Sinha, is the investigating officer. He proved his signature on fardbeyan (Ext-6). He also proved inquest report (Ext7). 5. After closer of the evidence the accused was examined under Section 313 of the Cr. P.C. Defence did not adduce any evidence. 6. The trial Court after considering the oral testimony of the witnesses and the exhibited documents convicted the appellant for offence, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. Challenging the said judgment and the order of sentence the instant appeal has been filed by the appellant. 7. The learned senior counsel for the appellant argued that there is no eye witness to the said occurrence. Admittedly, the P.W.1 who is the sister of the informant, and daughter of the accused and the deceased, is not an eye witness as she herself claimed in the cross-examination that before the occurrence the deceased sent her back to home and when she returned to the place of occurrence, she could not find her mother. He argues, that from this admission it is clear that this P.W.1 is not an eye witness and thus, on the basis of hearsay evidence, the appellant cannot be convicted. He submits that the extra judicial confession is a very weak piece of evidence and solely on that basis, without any corroboration, conviction cannot be sustained. He submits that in fact in the entire case there is not a single witness who proved the prosecution case. Since, there is no material against the appellant, the appellant could not have been convicted for the said offence. He lastly submits that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt or rather involvement of this appellant in the occurrence and thus, this appeal is to be allowed. 8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor defend the judgment and submitted that the entire evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution suggests that it is the appellant who has committed the murder. He submits that the court below has wrongly discarded the evidence of P.W.1 when in fact the P.W.1 has given all details of the occurrence and the medical evidence matches with the evidence of P.W.1. He submits that the court below has wrongly discarded the evidence of P.W.1 when in fact the P.W.1 has given all details of the occurrence and the medical evidence matches with the evidence of P.W.1. He submits that though extra judicial confession is a very weak piece of evidence but in the instant case nothing has been adduced by the appellant to suggest that the confession was not a voluntary one rather on the contrary from the evidence it is clear that the confession was voluntarily, without any coercion or force. He submits that even the First Information Report corroborates the fact that confession was made by the appellant before P.W.3. He lastly submits that there was a motive behind this murder which has also been established by the prosecution. 9. We have heard, learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P and have gone through the entire lower court records. 10. It is admitted that the appellant is the husband of the deceased. It is also admitted fact that P.W.1 is the daughter of the appellant and the deceased and P.W.2 who is the informant is the son of the appellant and the deceased. It is also admitted that the deceased is the first wife of the appellant. 11. The prosecution case is that the appellant gave several farsa blow on the deceased resulting to her death. P.W.1 narrated the fact to P.W.2 who lodged the F.I.R. From perusal of the evidence of P.W.1, one can understand that in her examination-in-chief, she has narrated the entire story as if she is an eye witness. In paragraph 13 of the cross-examination she has admitted that her mother had instructed her to return to home and on receiving such instruction she went to her house. When she again returned to the field, she could not find her mother. This part of the evidence clearly suggests that she is not the eye witness of the occurrence. Admittedly P.W.2, who is the informant is a hearsay witness. He narrated what he had heard from his sister i.e. P.W.1. P.W.3, Brij Bihari Singh, is the person before whom the appellant has confessed his guilt. In the fard beyan, it has been specifically mentioned that the appellant had confessed his guilt before Brij Bihari Singh (P.W.3). Admittedly P.W.2, who is the informant is a hearsay witness. He narrated what he had heard from his sister i.e. P.W.1. P.W.3, Brij Bihari Singh, is the person before whom the appellant has confessed his guilt. In the fard beyan, it has been specifically mentioned that the appellant had confessed his guilt before Brij Bihari Singh (P.W.3). It has been mentioned that the appellant has stated that he had killed his first wife by means of farsa. In the first information report this fact has been mentioned that the appellant made a confession before Brij Bihari Singh. This Brij Bihar Singh has been examined as P.W.3. In his evidence Brij Bihari Singh has stated that Ram Briksh Singh had told him that he has committed murder of his wife (the deceased). This Brij Bihari Singh was cross-examined. Surprisingly, no question was put to Brij Bihari Singh by the defence counsel controverting the confessional statement. Nothing has been elucidated by the defence in cross-examination. In fact no suggestion was even put to him about the confessional statement made by the appellant. The fact that confession was made by the appellant before Brij Bihari Singh remains unchallenged and uncontroverted. In this context it is necessary to refer to the evidence of P.W.8 who is the investigating officer. To controvert the confessional statement the defence had not put any question to the investigating officer to that effect. There is no contradiction in the statement of this P.W.3 on the point of confessional statement. There is nothing on record that the confessional statement was obtained by threat or coercion. Not even any suggestion was given effect by the defence. Since there is no cross examination on the point of confessional statement by the defence, it can be presumed that the confession is voluntary in nature. There is nothing on record that the evidence of P.W.3 is biased. Rather from the evidence it is quite clear that he was totally unbiased and unconnected with the controversy in hand and would also could not be said to be inimical to the appellant. Further he had no relation with the parties. Further the confession was made just after the commission of offence without any delay as the fact of making the confession find place in the First Information Report. 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gura Singh Vs. Further he had no relation with the parties. Further the confession was made just after the commission of offence without any delay as the fact of making the confession find place in the First Information Report. 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gura Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in (2001)2 SCC 205 , has held; “Despite inherent weakness of extrajudicial confession as an item of evidence, it cannot be ignored when shown that such confession was made before a person who has no reason to state falsely and to whom it is made in the circumstances which tend to support the statement. Relying upon an earlier judgment in Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh V. State of Vindhya Pradesh this Court again in Maghar Singh V. State of Punjab held that the evidence in the form of extrajudicial confession made by the accused to witnesses cannot be always termed to be a tainted evidence. Corroboration of such evidence is required only by way of abundant caution. If the court believes the witness before whom the confession is made and is satisfied that the confession was true and voluntarily made, then the conviction can be founded on such evidence alone. In Narayan Singh V. State of M.P. this Court cautioned that it is not open to the court trying the criminal case to start with a presumption that extrajudicial confession is always a weak type of evidence. It would depend on the nature of the circumstances, the time when the confession is made and the credibility of the witnesses who speak for such a confession.” 13. The evidence of P.W.3 is clear to the effect that the appellant had made a confession before him stating therein that he has committed murder of his first wife. The doctor, P.W.-7 who conducted the postmortem examination also found the following injuries on the person of the deceased; 1. Sharp cut 21/2''x1/2''x bone deep on left side of scalp parietal bone. 2.-Complete cut on right back of neck. Only skin and some soft tissues intact. 3.-Right thumb complete separated, only skin intact. Rigor-mortis was present in upper and lower limb. Eye-closed pale, mouth half open, Time since death 6 to 30 hours. He also deposed that all the injuries may be caused by farsa and is sufficient to cause death. 14. 2.-Complete cut on right back of neck. Only skin and some soft tissues intact. 3.-Right thumb complete separated, only skin intact. Rigor-mortis was present in upper and lower limb. Eye-closed pale, mouth half open, Time since death 6 to 30 hours. He also deposed that all the injuries may be caused by farsa and is sufficient to cause death. 14. It is well settled principle of law that the extra judicial confession if true and voluntary can be relied upon by the court to convict an accused for commission of crime. Applying the ratio above we find that there is nothing on record to disbelieve the veracity of the extra judicial confession. Further the fact that the appellant has confessed his guilt also finds place in the fard beyan. Thus, it is not for the first time P.W.3 in Court while giving evidence has stated that an appellant has confessed before him. The fact of making confession is corroborated from the fard beyan itself. 15. From the aforesaid discussions, we find that the trial Court has correctly convicted the appellant for committing murder of his wife and convicted under section 302 of the I.P.C. We find no merit in this criminal appeal, and hence, it is dismissed.