JUDGMENT V.M. Deshpande, J. 1. Being aggrieved by judgment and order of conviction dated 5.1.2005, in Sessions Case No.48 of 2004, by which learned 4th Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and directed to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/, and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months, appellant/accused has filed this appeal. 2. This Court admitted the present appeal on 8.4.2005. Vide order dated 29.7.2005, this Court by suspending substantive jail sentence of the appellant, released him on bail. 3. We have heard learned counsel Shri R.R. Gour appointed for the appellant by the High Court Legal Services Sub Committee, Nagpur and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri V.A. Thakare for the respondent/State. With able assistance of both learned counsel, we have gone through the record and proceedings and also the impugned judgment. 4. On 13.1.2004, PW10 Police Inspector Jivan Tulshiram Kshirsagar reduced into writing oral report of PW1 complainant Murlidhar Somaji Tikle in respect of murder of his nephew Bhaskar Jagan Tikle. Oral report is at Exhibit 22 whereas printed F.I.R. is at Exhibit 23. The crime was registered vide C.R. No.3 of 2004. On 131.1.2004 itself, PW10 Jivan Kshirsagar took appellant for inquiry. He arrested appellant on next day i.e. 14.1.2004 vide arrest panchanama Exhibit 35. In the meanwhile, dead body of Bhaskar was sent for postmortem. The postmortem was conducted by PW8 Dr. Purushottam Madhukarrao Balpande. While conducting postmortem, he noticed following injuries on the body of Bhaskar : i) Lenier deeply laceration measuring 5 x 6 x 7 cm., ii) Skull fracture present 6 xx 6½ x 5 cm. over the vertex measuring in deep direction. iii) Celrbral hemispear tear and separated laterally, superior region measuring 4 x 3½ x 1½ cm. Postmortem report is at Exhibit 45. The appellant was also referred to Dr. Purushottam Balpande for his medical examination. However, no injury was noticed on the person of the appellant. 5. After arrest of appellant on 14.1.2004, investigating officer seized clothes of the appellant by drawing seizure memo Exhibit 38 on 15.1.2004 at 7:00 o’clock in the evening. When the appellant was in police custody, he made a disclosure statement whereby he agreed to take out the weapon which he has concealed. 5. After arrest of appellant on 14.1.2004, investigating officer seized clothes of the appellant by drawing seizure memo Exhibit 38 on 15.1.2004 at 7:00 o’clock in the evening. When the appellant was in police custody, he made a disclosure statement whereby he agreed to take out the weapon which he has concealed. The memorandum statement is at Exhibit 25 and consequent recovery panchanama of the weapon is at Exhibit 56. The investigating officer, thereafter, sent the muddemal property for chemical analysis to the chemical analyzer. The muddemal property, which was sent, includes (i) blood as well as simple earth collected from the spot of the incident, (ii) weapon i.e. pickaxe recovered at the instance of the appellant, and (iii) clothes of the deceased. 6. After completion of other usual investigation, final report was presented in the Court of law. Learned Magistrate, in whose Court final report was presented, noticed that the offence is exclusively triable by the Court of sessions and, therefore, he passed committal order. After said order, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and it was registered as Sessions Case No.48 of 2004. Learned 4th Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur framed the charge vide Exhibit 15 against the appellant. The appellant denied the charge and claimed to be tried. 7. In order to bring home guilt of the appellant, the prosecution has examined in all 10 witnesses and also relied upon various documents. Learned Judge of the Court below convicted the appellant and ordered sentence as observed in the opening paragraph of the judgment. 8. Perusal of the impugned judgment shows that learned Judge of the Court below has discarded entire evidence of the prosecution to connect the appellant to the crime except extrajudicial confession made by the appellant to PW2 Kishor Bhagwan Nandardhane. It is to be noted here that chemical analyzer’s report Exhibit 67 shows no blood stain on the weapon that was recovered at the instance of the appellant. Further, it is to be noted that though clothes of the appellant were seized, those clothes were not sent to this chemical analyzer. 9. Learned Judge of the Court below has, in our view, rightly discarded evidences of other witnesses including evidence of Sunanda Kamdi who claimed to have witnessed actual assault. 10. Further, it is to be noted that though clothes of the appellant were seized, those clothes were not sent to this chemical analyzer. 9. Learned Judge of the Court below has, in our view, rightly discarded evidences of other witnesses including evidence of Sunanda Kamdi who claimed to have witnessed actual assault. 10. In the present appeal, therefore, we have to examine as to whether learned Judge of the Court below was right in convicting the appellant on the basis of extrajudicial confession which according to the prosecution was made by the appellant to PW2 Kishor Nandardhane. 11. By now, it is a settled principle of law that extrajudicial confession by itself is a very weak piece of evidence and only on this basis of such extrajudicial confession the conviction could not be secured or should be maintained unless said extrajudicial confession is corroborated by other admissible evidence. 12. Perusal of impugned judgment shows that learned Judge of the Court below has relied upon a decision of the Gujarat High in the case of Jayeshkumar Parshottamdas Valand Vs. State of Gujarat, reported at 1998 CRI.L.J. 4260 and observed that extrajudicial confession need not be independently corroborated if found to be voluntary, reliable, and unbiased. 13. The Honourable Apex Court in the case of Pakkirisamy .vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported at (1997) 8 SCC 158 has ruled that it is well settled that extrajudicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and the Court should be slow to accept such type of evidence and the Court should generally look for an independent reliable corroboration before placing any reliance on such extrajudicial confession. 14. The incident has occurred on 13.1.2004. According to Kishor Nandardhane, who is vegetable seller, after selling vegetables at Wadsa, he came to village at 4:00 p.m. and after taking his lunch at 4:30 p.m., he went to the field of Bhaskar (deceased). According to his version, when he was going to the field of Bhaksar, he noticed Waman (appellant) coming from the field and that time Waman disclosed to this witness that he has beaten Bhaskar. In his crossexamination, he has admitted that while returning from the said field, he noticed wife of deceased. However, he chose not to disclose beating of Bhaskar at the hands of the present appellant. The statement of this man is recorded on next day. In his crossexamination, he has admitted that while returning from the said field, he noticed wife of deceased. However, he chose not to disclose beating of Bhaskar at the hands of the present appellant. The statement of this man is recorded on next day. The evidence of this witness shows that he is a chance witness since he has admitted that he also used to go to the agricultural field of others. Keeping silence for one day, though he noticed Bhaskar (deceased) in a dead condition after receiving information from the appellant that he has given beating to Bhaskar, in our view, brings his evidence in shadow, coupled with the fact that there is no other corroboration to statement of PW2 Kishor Nandardhane either from a scientific evidence. Further, Kishor is totally silent about disclosing this fact to other prosecution witnesses. Though their evidences are discarded by learned Judge of the Court below, they claim that they received information from Kishor. 15. In view of aforesaid discussions, in our view, it will be unsafe to uphold the conviction of the appellant on uncorroborated extrajudicial confession made to PW2 Kishor Nandardhane. Consequently, we pass the following order: ORDER (i) The criminal appeal is allowed. (ii) Judgment and order of conviction, passed by learned 4th Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, in Sessions Case No.48 of 2004, is hereby quashed and set aside. (iii) The appellant is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) Bail bond of the appellant stands cancelled. The learned counsel Shri R.R. Gour appointed for the appellant, who has very ably pleaded the case, is entitled to receive his professional charges from the High Court Legal Service Sub Committee, Nagpur. We quantify the same at Rs.7,500/( rupees seven thousand five hundred only).