JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Kashi Nath Roy, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction dated 20-9-2010 (sentence passed on 21-9-2010), by Shri Indra Deo Mishra, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Giridhih (Muffasil) P.S. case No. 150/2006, corresponding to G. R. No. 943/2006, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 o the Indian Penal Code nd sentenced to undergo R. I. for life. 3. A First Information Report was instituted on the allegation that the informant who is a village Choukidar had 23-5-2006 come to Baragarha on his daily round. It has been alleged that he saw a mob assembled in the campus of Utkramit Madhya Vidyalaya, Baragarha. When he went to the place of occurrence he had found a dead body of a woman in the northern boundary of the school. He has stated that the women was aged about 48 years and there were wound on her head and face and blood was oozing out. It has further been alleged that the villagers who were assembled had disclosed the name of the deceased as Budhni Devi wife of Gudda Manjhi. He was further told that the appellant had committed the murder by crushing the head and face of the deceased with a stone; they had also seen the blood stained hand of the appellant which he had washed out. 4. Based on the aforesaid allegation Giridih (M) P.S. Case No. 150/2006, corresponding to G. R. No. 943/2006 was instituted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Investigation resulted in submission of charge sheet and after cognizance was taken the case was committed to the Court of Sessions on 28-7-2006. Charge was framed under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and trial proceeded. 6. In course of trial, 9 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. 7. P.W.-1 (Meghlal Manjhi) has stated that the deceased was his neighbour and the appellant had committed the murder of the deceased. He has further stated that he had seen the injuries which were caused by stone. This witness has disclosed that at the time of occurrence the father of the appellant had gone out of the village for some work. P.W.-1 (Meghlal Manjhi) has stated that the deceased was his neighbour and the appellant had committed the murder of the deceased. He has further stated that he had seen the injuries which were caused by stone. This witness has disclosed that at the time of occurrence the father of the appellant had gone out of the village for some work. He had seen some blood-stain on the body of the appellant but he has admitted the he had not seen the incident of murder. 8. P.W.-2 (Munnilal Hansda) has proved his signature in the inquest report which has been marked as Exhibit-1. He has stated that the accused persons had assembled near the dead body and they had caught hold of the appellant. 9. P.W.-3 (Lakhan Soren) had also identified his signature in the inquest report which has been marked as Exhibit-1/1. He has stated that his house is at the distance of 1 K.M. from the place of occurrence. This witness has admitted that he had not seen the occurrence. He has lso stated that the dead body was covered with a cloth due to which he could not seen the injuries. 10. P.W.-4 (Ram Lal Hansda) did not support the prosecution case and declared hostile by the prosecution. 11. P.W.-5 (Hopna Besra) has stated that he had gone to the place of occurrence when it came to his knowledge that Budhni Devi was murdered by the appellant. This witness has stated that he had seen blood-stain stone as also injuries upon Budhni Devi. He has further stated that the appellant was also present who was tied by the villagers because the appellant had disclosed that he had committed the murder. This witness admittedly is also not an eye- witness. 12. P.W.-6 (Gudda Manjhi) is the father of the appellant who has stated that at the time of occurrence he had gone outside for some work. He has further disclose that Puran Hansda had told him that the appellant had committed the murder of his wife. This witness had returned back on the next day. On the prayer of the prosecution he was declared hostile. 13. P.W.-7 (Dr. Bishwanath Das) had proved the post-mortem report and has further stated that the autopsy was conducted by Dr. Kamleshwar Prasad. 14. This witness had returned back on the next day. On the prayer of the prosecution he was declared hostile. 13. P.W.-7 (Dr. Bishwanath Das) had proved the post-mortem report and has further stated that the autopsy was conducted by Dr. Kamleshwar Prasad. 14. P.W.-8 (Mathura Turi) is the informant and the village Choukidar who was informed that the deceased was killed by the appellant near the school by crushing her head with a stone. This witness had informed the Police who had come and taken his statement. He had also proved the fardbeyan which has been marked as Exhibit-3. 15. P.W.-9 (Rajendra Kumar Dubey) is the Investigating Officer who has stated that on 23-5-2006 he was posted at Muffasil P.S. as a Sub-Inspector of Police. He hs further stated that he got information that a women was killed at Bargarahakala pursuant to which Sanha No. 645 was entered and thereafter he had gone for verification of the information. He has stated that he had found a dead body near Utkramit Madhya Vidyalaya and several persons were seen assembled at the place of occurrence. He had recorded the fardbeyan of the Choukidar (P.W. 8) and thereafter prepared the inquest report in which P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 had put their signature. He has also proved the inquest report marked as Exhibit-4. This witness has sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. He had also recorded the restatement of the informant and the statement of other witnesses namely Munnilal, Meghlal, Gudda Manjhi, Hopna Besra and Ram Lal Hansda and finding the allegation to be true he had submitted charge sheet. The appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he had denied to have participated in the occurrence. 16. It has been submitted by Mr. Kashi Nath Roy, learned counsel for the appellant that admittedly there is no eye-witness to the occurrence and only on the basis of circumstantial evidence the appellant has been convicted. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that circumstantial evidence which forms the basis of conviction by the learned trial court is on weak piece of evidences as the basis for such conviction hs been contradicted by the evidence of P.W. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that circumstantial evidence which forms the basis of conviction by the learned trial court is on weak piece of evidences as the basis for such conviction hs been contradicted by the evidence of P.W. 5. It has further been submitted that the extrajudicial confession of the appellant which was also a relevant consideration made by the learned trial Court at the time of conviction is a weak piece of evidence which could not have been at all considered and therefore it has been prayed that since the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt the appellant deserves acquittal. 17. Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the appeal preferred by the appellant and has stated that the prosecution has been able to establish the circumstantial evidence which would point to the guilt of the appellant. He has submitted tht P.W. 5 and P.W. 8 has specifically disclosed about the extrajudicial confession made by the appellant. He has further submitted that the appellant was found near the place of occurrence and so was the stone which further proves the circumstantial evidence against the appellant and therefore on such score the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. 18. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and upon going through the record, we find that the learned trial Court has based its conviction on circumstantial evidence. Admittedly there is no eye-witness to the occurrence and the circumstantial evidence is based upon the deposition of P.W. 5 and P.W. 8. So far as P.W. 8 the informant is concerned he had disclosed that the villagers had stated about the confession made by the appellant before the villagers. However, so far as the villagers are concerned only the evidence of P.W. 5 seems to be of some substance with respect to the alleged extrajudicial confession. However, if we examine the evidence of P.W. 5 it transpires that he has stated that the appellant had confessed before him and other villagers and that he was tied by the villagers on account of his admitting to committing the murder of his mother. However, if we examine the evidence of P.W. 5 it transpires that he has stated that the appellant had confessed before him and other villagers and that he was tied by the villagers on account of his admitting to committing the murder of his mother. However the evidence of P.W. 5 can easily be demolished in view of the fact that at the very outset in his examination-in-chief he has stated that when on information he had rushed to the place of occurrence he had seen the dead body of the deceased and the appellant was nowhere present near the dead body. It therefore establishes the fact that the alleged extrajudicial confession made by the appellant was not in presence of P.W. 5. So far as other witnesses are concerned who are the villagers they have not stated about the said fact and has merely concentracted on the injury sustained by the deceased while admitting that they had not seen the occurrence. In the case of Vijay Shankar v. State of Haryana, (2015) 12 SCC 644 while considering as to when conviction can be passed on circumstantial evidence the principles have been summarized which are reflected herein under :- "8. There is no eye-witness to the occurrence and the entire case is based upon circumstantial evidence. The normal principle is that in a case based on circumstantial evidence the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; that these circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; that the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and they should be incapable of explanation of any hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with their innocence vide Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) AIR SC 1622. The same view was reiterated in Bablu v. State of Rajasthan, (2007) AIR SC 697." 19. So far as extrajudicial confession which also forms the basis of conviction of the appellant is concerned it would be apt to quote from the said judgment the following :- "18. The same view was reiterated in Bablu v. State of Rajasthan, (2007) AIR SC 697." 19. So far as extrajudicial confession which also forms the basis of conviction of the appellant is concerned it would be apt to quote from the said judgment the following :- "18. Principles in respect of evidentiary value and reliability of extrajudicial confession have been summarised by this Court in Sahadevan v. State of T.N., (2012) AIR SC 2435, which reads as under : (SCC pp. 412-13, para 16). "(i) The extrajudicial 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 extrajudicial 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 extrajudicial 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." "19. Extrajudicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and the Courts are to view it with greater care and caution. For an extra-judicial confession to form the basis of conviction, it should not suffer from any material discrepancies and inherent improbabilities. In the case on hand, extrajudicial confession allegedly made to PW12 does not inspire confidence and cannot form the basis for the conviction." 20. Thus the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case as the circumstantial evidence which has much been harped upon by the learned trial Court seems not to point to the guilt of the appellant and so far as the extrajudicial confession is concerned the same is a very weak piece of evidence which the prosecution has failed to strengthen and absence of any substantive evidence would definitely entail the appellant to be given the benefit of doubt. 21. Considering the totality of the circumstances enumerated above this appeal has to be allowed. 21. Considering the totality of the circumstances enumerated above this appeal has to be allowed. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the judgment and order of conviction dated 20-9-2010 (sentence passed on 21-9-2010), by Shri Indra Deo Mishra, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih, in Sessions Trial No. 332/2006, arising out of Giridih (Muffasil) P. S. Case No. 150/2006, corresponding to G. R. No. 943/2006, is hereby, set aside. 22. The appellant be released immediately and forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. Appeal allowed.