JUDGMENT : DR. S.VIMALA, J. The appellant is A-2 before the Trial Court. The appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the conviction and sentence passed by the II Addl. Dist & Sessions Judge in S.C. No. 160 of 2013 by the judgment dated 20.11.15. The appellant was tried before the Trial Court on the allegation that he, along with the deceased accused A-1, committed the murder of the deceased. The appellant was tried for the following charges and on being found guilty, the appellant was sentenced as hereunder :- U/s 302 r/w 34 IPC Convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment and directed to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. U/s 380 r/w 34 IPC Convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. Challenging the above conviction and sentence imposed, the appellant has filed the present appeal. 2. The brief facts, shorn of unnecessary details, is as under :- P.W.1 is the younger brother of the deceased. The deceased was a Tailor by profession. At about 8.00 p.m. on 24.2.08, P.W.1 met the deceased near his house and at that time, the deceased was in an intoxicated state. P.W.1 advised him not to drink too much and left him. On 25.2.08, when P.W.1 was attending to his duty, Chenniappan, the house owner of the deceased informed P.W.1 that the deceased was found lying dead. P.W.1, along with P.W.2, Sunder Singh, went to the house of the deceased and saw him lying dead. P.W.1 further found injuries on face of the deceased and that blood had oozed from the nose of the deceased. Since P.W.1 suspected foul play in the death of the deceased, the criminal law was set in motion by P.W.1 lodging the complaint Ex.P-1 at Tirupur Town Police Station. 3. P.W.11 is the Sub Inspector of Police attached to the Tirupur Town Police Station. On 25.2.08, P.W.1 appeared before him and gave the written complaint about the death of the deceased, which was registered as Cr. No.181/08 u/s 174 Cr.P.C. under the head 'Suspicious Death'. P.W.11 prepared printed FIR, Ex.P-14, which was forwarded to the jurisdictional Magistrate Court and the copy was forwarded to the higher officials. 4. On 25.2.08, P.W.1 appeared before him and gave the written complaint about the death of the deceased, which was registered as Cr. No.181/08 u/s 174 Cr.P.C. under the head 'Suspicious Death'. P.W.11 prepared printed FIR, Ex.P-14, which was forwarded to the jurisdictional Magistrate Court and the copy was forwarded to the higher officials. 4. P.W.12, the Inspector of Police, on receipt of the case records, commenced investigation. He went to the scene of occurrence at about 11.00 a.m. and in the presence of Anandan, Arivalagan and other witnesses, prepared observation mahazar, Ex.P-3 and drew rough sketch, Ex.P-15. Between 11.00 a.m. and 3.00 p.m., P.W.12 conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of panchayatadars and prepared inquest report, Ex.P-16. Thereafter, the dead body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem through P.W.10. 5. P.W.10, the Special Sub Inspector of Police, on receipt of the requisition to conduct post-mortem, accompanied the body of the deceased to the hospital, where he identified the body of the deceased to the doctor. The blue colour lungi, M.O.5, which was on the body of the deceased was seized by P.W.10 and handed over to P.W.12 along with his report, which was recovered under Form 95. After post-mortem, P.W.10 handed over the dead body of the deceased to the relatives. 6. P.W.6, the Asst. Surgeon, Government Hospital, Tirupur, on receipt of the body of the deceased, conducted post mortem and issued post-mortem certificate, Ex.P-6, opining that the deceased appear to have died due to shock and haemorrhage due to head injury and violent compression over neck. The deceased would have consumed ethyl alcohol prior to death and could have been under its influence. 7. P.W.12, continuing with his investigation, collected bloodstained cement pieces and sample cement pieces, M.O.s 1 & 2, under mahazar. Thereafter, he examined other witnesses and recorded their statements. 8. On 29.2.08, A-1, Kesavan, appeared before P.W.5, Village Administrative Officer, and gave an extra judicial confession, in the presence of one Rajendran, that he along with A-2, Pandi, murdered the deceased by beating and strangulating him, which was recorded by P.W.5 in which P.W.5 and Rajendran had affixed their signatures. Thereafter, P.W.5 took the deceased and handed him over to the police along with the recorded confession, Ex.P-4. 9. Thereafter, P.W.5 took the deceased and handed him over to the police along with the recorded confession, Ex.P-4. 9. P.W.12, on coming to know about the extra judicial confession recorded by P.W.5 on 29.2.08, received the confession statement and, thereafter, the Head Constable altered the section of offence to one u/s 302 IPC and altered FIR was prepared and sent to Court and higher officials. P.W.12, thereafter, in the presence of Thrimurugan and Selvaraj, examined A-1 and at that time, A-1 voluntarily gave a confession statement, which was reduced into writing. The admissible portion of the confession statement is marked as Ex.P-11. Thereafter, A-1 took P.W.12 to his residence and produced the watch, M.O.3, which was seized under the cover of mahazar, Ex.P-8. A-1 thereafter took P.W.12 to the residence of A-2 from where P.W.12 arrested A-2. On arrest, A-2 gave a voluntary confession statement, the admissible portion of which is marked as Ex.P-12. Pursuant to the said confession statement, A-2 produced the brown colour purse, M.O.4, which was seized by P.W.12 under the cover of mahazar, Ex.P-9. P.W.12 sent a requisition to the Magistrate to send the case properties for chemical examination. 10. P.W.12, on receipt of the post-mortem certificate examined the doctor, who conducted post-mortem on the body of the deceased and recorded his statement. However, before filing of the final report, A-1 died and, therefore, the final report was filed only against A-2 charging him for the offence u/s 302 and 380 IPC. 11. The prosecution, in order to sustain their case, examined P.W.s 1 to 12, marked Exs.P-1 to P-16 and also marked M.O.s 1 to 5. The accused was, thereafter, questioned under Section 313 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances made out against him in the evidence tendered by the prosecution witnesses and A-2 denied it as false. On behalf of A-2, neither any witness was examined nor any documents were marked. 12. The trial court, on a consideration of oral and documentary evidence and other materials, found the appellant guilty of the offences u/s 302 r/w 34 and 380 r/w 34 IPC and sentenced him as above. Aggrieved by the above conviction and sentence, the present appeal has been preferred by A-2/appellant. 13. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the entire prosecution edifice is based upon the extra judicial confession made by the A-1 (since deceased) to P.W.5. Aggrieved by the above conviction and sentence, the present appeal has been preferred by A-2/appellant. 13. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the entire prosecution edifice is based upon the extra judicial confession made by the A-1 (since deceased) to P.W.5. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the said extra judicial confession given by the A-1 (since deceased) cannot be the basis to convict the appellant herein, when there are no corroborative circumstance nor corroborative evidence to rely on the same. Therefore, the conviction recorded on the basis of the extra judicial confession, which has not been proved in a manner known to law, has to be disbelieved. Further, the recovery at the instance of A-2 has also not been proved in a manner known to law and, therefore, for the reasons stated above the appellant is entitled to an acquittal. 14. On the above contentions, this Court heard the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, who heavily relied on the extra judicial confession and contended that the trial court has taken into consideration all the materials and has recorded the conviction. Further, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submitted that if the extra judicial confession is subjected to rigorous tests on the touchstone of credibility, the extra judicial confession can be accepted and can be the basis of conviction, if it passes the test of credibility and in this regard, relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Kulvinder Singh & Anr. – Vs – State of Haryana (C.A. No.916 of 2005 – Dated 11.04.2011). In fine, it is submitted that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, no interference is warranted with the well considered findings of the court below. 15. This Court gave its anxious considerations to the submissions advanced on either side and also perused the materials available on record as also the decision relied on by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. This Court also took into consideration the precedents in the matter of proof required in cases relating to extra judicial confession. 16. It is the case of the prosecution that the evidence of the doctor, P.W.6, who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased coupled with the post mortem certificate, Ex.P-6, clearly establish that the death was caused by the appellant and the other accused, who died pending trial. 16. It is the case of the prosecution that the evidence of the doctor, P.W.6, who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased coupled with the post mortem certificate, Ex.P-6, clearly establish that the death was caused by the appellant and the other accused, who died pending trial. It is the case of the prosecution that A-1 and A-2 deliberately and intentionally caused the death of the deceased by dashing the head of the deceased against the wall and also by causing injuries over the body by strangulating him, but the case of the defence is that the deceased, who was in an inebriated state, fell down and sustained injuries resulting in his death. Therefore, the crucial question to be decided is whether the death was due to homicidal violence caused by the appellant. 17. The cause of death of the deceased stands established by the evidence of the Doctor, P.W.6 as also the post-mortem certificate, Ex.P-6, which clearly reveals that the deceased would appear to have died due to shock and haemorrhage due to head injury and violent compression over neck. The above evidence has not been disputed by the appellant. Therefore, from the above materials, it is categorically clear that the deceased had died on account of homicidal violence. 18. But the crucial question to be considered is whether the appellant has caused the death of the deceased, as put forth by the prosecution. 19. The case of the prosecution revolves upon circumstances, which are projected to give credibility to the extra judicial confession on the basis of which the crime has been fastened on the appellant. The extra judicial confession is the fulcrum on which the prosecution theory revolves. If it is found that the extra judicial confession is true and believable, then the necessary corollary is that the appellant has committed the offence. If not, the appellant is entitled for an acquittal. 20. It is trite law that extra judicial confession is always a weak piece of evidence and unless it is corroborated in all material particulars, it cannot be relied upon and more specifically an extra judicial confession given by one accused cannot be made use of against the other accused. 21. If not, the appellant is entitled for an acquittal. 20. It is trite law that extra judicial confession is always a weak piece of evidence and unless it is corroborated in all material particulars, it cannot be relied upon and more specifically an extra judicial confession given by one accused cannot be made use of against the other accused. 21. The Supreme Court in Vijay Shankar – Vs - State of Haryana ( 2015 (12) SCC 644 ), followed with approval the principles laid down in Sahadevan – Vs – State of T.N. ( 2012 (6) SCC 403 ), which is quoted hereunder for better clarity : 18. Principles in respect of evidentiary value and reliability of extra-judicial confession have been summarised by this Court in Sahadevan v. State of T.N. [Sahadevan v. State of T.N., (2012) 6 SCC 403 : (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 146] , which reads as under: “(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.” 19. Extra-judicial 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, extra-judicial confession allegedly made to PW 12 does not inspire confidence and cannot form the basis for the conviction. 22. Keeping the above principles in mind, this Court now proceeds to analyze the extra judicial confession. The alleged extra judicial confession is said to have been given by the accused Keasvan (since deceased) to P.W.5. It is borne out by record that P.W.5 is a total stranger to the accused Kesavan (since deceased). 22. Keeping the above principles in mind, this Court now proceeds to analyze the extra judicial confession. The alleged extra judicial confession is said to have been given by the accused Keasvan (since deceased) to P.W.5. It is borne out by record that P.W.5 is a total stranger to the accused Kesavan (since deceased). The evidence of P.W.5 is to the effect that while he was in his office, the accused Kesavan (since deceased) came to his office and gave the confession, which was recorded by P.W.5 in which P.W.5 and one Rajendran have affixed their signatures. However, for reasons best known to the prosecution, the said Rajendran, who is crucial to connecting the extra judicial confession with the accused Kesavan (since deceased), has not been examined. The non-examination of Rajendran, the witness to the extra judicial confession strikes at the root of the prosecution theory. 23. Further, P.W.5, during cross examination, has deposed that on the accused Kesavan (since deceased) narrating the incident about the commission of the crime, P.W.5 contacted the Inspector of Police, who asked P.W.5 to record the said confession statement. However, the said fact has not been corroborated by P.W.12, the investigating officer. It is the further deposition of P.W.5 in cross examination that his office and police station are at a commuting distance and would not take more than 10 to 15 minutes. 24. The deposition of P.W.5 regarding his contacting the Inspector of Police, who had asked him to record the confession statement of the accused Kesavan (since deceased), not being corroborated by P.W.12, the investigating officer, the evidence of P.W.5 so also the extra judicial confession, Ex.P-4 loses its weightage. 25. Though the prosecution witnesses, viz., P.W.s 7 and 8 have spoken about the confession of the accused Kesavan (since deceased) in chief examination, but had admitted in cross examination that they do not know the contents of the confession given by A-1 and A-2 to the police authorities. 26. It is worthwhile to remember at this stage that the evidence of P.W.12 is to the effect that the accused Kesavan (since deceased) was surrendered by P.W.5 along with the confession statement, Ex.P-4. 26. It is worthwhile to remember at this stage that the evidence of P.W.12 is to the effect that the accused Kesavan (since deceased) was surrendered by P.W.5 along with the confession statement, Ex.P-4. This clearly shows that P.W.12 had no information that the appellant had given a statement to P.W.5 and, therefore, the deposition of P.W.5 that he enquired with the Inspector of Police, who asked him to reduce the confession into writing, cannot be believed. Once there arises a doubt in the deposition of P.W.5, equally the rest of the deposition also loses its significance. Similarly, the extra judicial confession said to have been recorded by P.W.5 also cannot be believed. Further, had the accused Kesavan (since deceased) gone before P.W.5 and given the confession, which was relayed to P.W.12, P.W.12 would definitely have gone over to the place of P.W.5, which is within a very short distance and would have arrested the accused Kesavan (since deceased) and would have obtained the confession himself. The evidence of P.W.12 is contrary to the evidence of P.W.5 and, therefore, no reliance can be placed on the extra judicial confession said to have been given by the accused Kesavan (since deceased) to P.W.5. 27. Further, there was no occasion or attendant circumstances for the accused Kesavan (since deceased) to make the extra-judicial confession to P.W.5. Once the extra judicial confession is disbelieved, the further arrest of A-2 and the recovery at the instance of the accused would be of no value to the prosecution. 28. Further, even if the evidence of P.W.5 is believed, it is to be pointed out that even as per the deposition of P.W.5, the confession itself was recorded as instructed by the police officer and, therefore, the alleged extra judicial confession could not be said to be a voluntary one and, therefore, no reliance can be placed on the said confession given to P.W.5. 29. In this regard, useful reference can be had to the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan – Vs – Raja Ram ( 2003 (8) SCC 180 ), the Supreme Court held thus :- “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 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 value of the evidence as to the confession depends on the reliability of the witness who gives the evidence. It is not open to any court to start with a presumption that extra-judicial confession is a weak type of evidence. It would depend on the nature of the circumstances, the time when the confession was made and the credibility of the witnesses who speak to such a confession. 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, the words spoken to by the witnesses are clear, unambiguous and unmistakably convey that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime and nothing is omitted by the witness which may militate against it. After subjecting the evidence of the witness to a rigorous test on the touchstone of credibility, the extra-judicial confession can be accepted and can be the basis of a conviction if it passes the test of credibility.” (Emphasis Supplied) 30. If the evidence relating to extra judicial confession is found credible after being tested on the touchstone of credibility and acceptability, it can solely form the basis of conviction. The requirement of corroboration is a matter of prudence and not an invariable rule of law. From the materials available on record, it is highly improbable that the accused Kesavan (since deceased) would have reposed confidence on a person who is a total stranger to him to confess to his guilt. Further, a careful scrutiny of the evidence of P.W.5 shows that even if the extra judicial confession had been given by the accused Kesavan (since deceased), the same could not have been a voluntary one. Further, the confession to P.W.5 not being corroborated by P.W.12, the extra-judicial confession loses its credibility. 31. Further, a careful scrutiny of the evidence of P.W.5 shows that even if the extra judicial confession had been given by the accused Kesavan (since deceased), the same could not have been a voluntary one. Further, the confession to P.W.5 not being corroborated by P.W.12, the extra-judicial confession loses its credibility. 31. From all the contributing factors noted above, it is clear that the extrajudicial confession, said to have been given by the accused Kesavan (since deceased) to P.W.5 is far from believable and it does not satisfy the test of credibility and voluntariness. Therefore, it would be wholly unsafe to act upon the extra-judicial confession to record the conviction against the appellant. 32. Further, it is to be pointed out that the confession by one of the accused cannot be relied upon as against the other accused. It is pointed out that the extra judicial confession is allegedly given by the accused Kesavan (since deceased), who died pending trial and, therefore, that confession cannot be used to implicate the present appellant. The confession of a co-accused can only be taken into consideration, but it is not substantive evidence. In the case on hand, the extra judicial confession of the co-accused itself has been disbelieved by this Court and the necessary corollary follows is that the conviction based on the said extra judicial confession cannot be sustained. 33. It is further to be pointed out that the recovery of M.O.s 3 and 4 at the instance of A-1 and A-2 are also highly doubtful. Though P.W.s 7 and 8 have been examined to prove the recovery, however it is to be pointed out that in their deposition in cross, both P.W.s 7 and 8 have spoken in unison that they do not know about the contents of the confession given by the accused. In such circumstances, the alleged recovery of M.O.s 3 and 4 at the instance of A-1 and A-2 does not inspire the confidence of this Court and the recovery of the said material objects does not in any way propel the prosecution version. 34. For all the reasons stated above, the prosecution has pathetically failed to prove that it is the appellant, who aided the accused Kesavan (since deceased) in committing the crime. The evidence falling way short, the appellant herein is entitled to an acquittal. 35. 34. For all the reasons stated above, the prosecution has pathetically failed to prove that it is the appellant, who aided the accused Kesavan (since deceased) in committing the crime. The evidence falling way short, the appellant herein is entitled to an acquittal. 35. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant is set aside and he is acquitted of all the charges framed against him. The appellant is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.