JUDGMENT : The instant Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 12.02.2004 and order of sentence, dated 13.02.2004, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. V, Jamshedpur, East Singhbum, in Sessions Trial No. 6 of 2003, whereby the sole appellant has been found guilty and convicted for the offence committed and punishable under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code and awarded rigorous imprisonment for seven years. 2. The prosecution case is based upon the written report submitted by the informant Jihur Singh (P.W. 6), before the Officer-in-Charge, Patamda Police Station in the district of East Singhbhum on 06.11.2002, alleging therein that on 06.11.2002 at around 8.00 A.M. when he was going to his field, he saw a number of people assembled near the house of his cousin Mohan Singh, upon which the informant went to the house of his cousin Mohan Singh and saw that his cousin was lying on the cot in unconscious condition and blood was oozing from his head. It is stated that when the informant enquired the same from the wife of his cousin Kanta Bala Singh, she disclosed that her husband has returned home on 05.11.2002 at around 10.00 P.M. in intoxicated condition and started demanding money. When Kanti Bala Singh refused to give money, her husband started assaulting her and to protect herself, in anger she assaulted her husband by means of a silauta (stone material used for grinding spices) on head, causing injury. It is further alleged by the informant that his brother has been assaulted by his wife with an intention to kill and has also applied salt on the wounds. The informant has stated that because of being villager and there was no means of transportation, delay has been caused in informing the police and came along with one Ayodhya Singh to inform about the same. 3. On the basis of written report, police has registered Patamda P.S. Case No. 77 of 2002 dated 06.11.2002, under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused Kanta Bala Singh. 4. After investigation, the police has submitted charge sheet against the accused Kanta Bala Singh vide charge sheet no. 87 of 2002, dated 22.12.2002, under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code and subsequently supplementary chargesheet vide chargesheet no. 19/2003, dated 15.04.2003 under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. 4. After investigation, the police has submitted charge sheet against the accused Kanta Bala Singh vide charge sheet no. 87 of 2002, dated 22.12.2002, under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code and subsequently supplementary chargesheet vide chargesheet no. 19/2003, dated 15.04.2003 under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. The cognizance of the offence has been taken vide order dated 03.01.2003 and the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 04.01.2003. 6. The charge has been framed against the accused/appellant under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code vide order dated 03.03.2003, to which the accused/appellant has pleaded her innocence and thus, she was put under trial. The prosecution has examined five witnesses and thereafter the prosecution has altered the charge under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code on 24.09.2003 giving an opportunity to the appellant that she may re-examine the witnesses but no witnesses have been re-examined in this case as the appellant has never preferred the same but she has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, thus trial proceeded. 7. The prosecution, to prove its case, has examined altogether eight witnesses. Ayodhaya Singh, signatory of the First Information Report has been examined as P.W. 1 on 25.03.2003, Tanu Singh has been examined as P.W. 2 on 25.03.2003, Nepal Singh has been examined as P.W. 3 on 19.07.2003, Neel Kamal Mahato has been examined as P.W. 4 on 19.07.2003, Kanhai Singh has been examined as P.W. 5 on 04.08.2003, Jihur Singh, informant and cousin of the deceased, has been examined as P.W. 6 on 24.09.2003, Dr. Akhilesh Kumar Chaudhary, Medical Officer has been examined as P.W. 7 on 07.11.2003 and Mitali Dey, staff nurse of M.G.M. hospital has been examined as P.W. 8 on 22.11.2003 but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. 8. The prosecution has also adduced five documentary evidence in support of its case. Akhilesh Kumar Chaudhary, Medical Officer has been examined as P.W. 7 on 07.11.2003 and Mitali Dey, staff nurse of M.G.M. hospital has been examined as P.W. 8 on 22.11.2003 but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. 8. The prosecution has also adduced five documentary evidence in support of its case. Signature of Ayodhaya Singh (P.W. 1) on the fardbeyan has been proved and marked as Exhibit-1, signature of Jihur Singh on the fardbeyan has been proved and marked as Exhibit-1/a, signature of Ayodhaya Singh (P.W. 1) on the seizure list has been proved and marked as Exhibit-2, signature of Neel Kamal Mahato (P.W. 4) on the seizure list has been proved and marked as Exhibit-2/a, signature of Tanu Singh (P.W. 2) on memo of arrest of the appellant, dated 07.11.2002 at 16.30 Hrs. has been proved and marked as Exhibit-3, post mortem report of the deceased has been proved and marked as Exhibit-4 and signature of Mitali Dey (P.W. 8) on her fardbeyan, recorded by the police on 29.12.2002 at M.G.M. Hospital, has been proved and marked as Exhibit-5. 9. After closure of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused/appellant has been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 19.01.2004, to which accused/appellant has pleaded that she is innocent and there is no legal material against her. The appellant has denied about the quarrel with her husband or has assaulted her husband on head or any other part of his body by means of silauta (piece of stone). She has further stated that she has heard that her husband has died. 10. After hearing the parties and on perusal of the records, the learned Trial Court has passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, holding the appellant guilty under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code. Being aggrieved at and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellant named above has preferred the present criminal appeal, assailing the same. 11. Heard, learned Amicus Curiae, Mr. Vishwanath Ray, Advocate. Learned Amicus Curiae has submitted, that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is bad in law and cannot sustain in the eyes of law. 11. Heard, learned Amicus Curiae, Mr. Vishwanath Ray, Advocate. Learned Amicus Curiae has submitted, that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is bad in law and cannot sustain in the eyes of law. Learned Amicus Curiae has submitted that the learned trial court without scrutinising the materials available on record, wrongly came to the conclusion that statement of the hearsay witnesses are sufficient to prove extra judicial confession. Learned Amicus Curiae to buttress his argument has relied upon a judgment as reported in (2012) 6 SCC 403 Sahadevan & Anr. versus State of Tamil Nadu. Learned Amicus Curiae has referred paragraph-21, which laid down the principles for making extra judicial confession and admissible piece of evidence capable of forming the basis of conviction of an accused. The principles are : “(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.” Learned Amicus Curiae has submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that it is a weak piece of evidence and it must be corroborated by further cogent circumstantial evidence. Learned amicus curiae has further submitted that no further cogent circumstance has been proved by the prosecution. Neither the stone seized by the police has been brought on record as a Material exhibit nor the serological blood stain found on the stone has been matched with the blood of deceased. Learned amicus curiae has thus, submitted that cousin of the deceased is the informant of the case along with one Ayodhaya Singh were only interested in lodging case than saving the injured. From perusal of the written report, it appears that it has been proved but the same has not been exhibited but the signatures of the informant Jihur Singh (P.W. 6) and Ayodhaya Singh (P.W. 1) on the written report have been proved and marked as Exhibit-1/a and 1. From perusal of the written report, it appears that it has been proved but the same has not been exhibited but the signatures of the informant Jihur Singh (P.W. 6) and Ayodhaya Singh (P.W. 1) on the written report have been proved and marked as Exhibit-1/a and 1. Learned amicus curiae has further submitted that from perusal of the written report, which is the basis of initiation of the prosecution case, it appears that informant has not taken the victim (deceased) Mohan Singh for treatment to the hospital, rather he was interested in lodging case against the wife of the deceased. Learned amicus curiae has drawn the attention of this Court towards the evidence of P.W. 2 Tanu Singh, who has admitted in paragraph-6 of his cross-examination that Mohan Singh and Ganesh Singh are sons of late Narayan @ Naya Singh and said Ganesh Singh has already left the village 5-6 years ago and is residing with his in-laws. Learned amicus curiae has further submitted that all the prosecution witnesses are hearsay witnesses, none of the witnesses have claimed themselves to be an eye-witness to the occurrence. Learned amicus curiae has referred the evidence of Neel Kamal Mahato (P.W. 4), who has categorically stated that when he reached to the house of the deceased, he was alive and thereafter the injured was brought to the hospital for treatment, at that time Mohan Singh was alive but died subsequently on 28.12.2002. Learned amicus curiae has further submitted that from the evidence brought on record, none of the person is independent witnesses except Ayodhaya Singh, who is in complete collusion with the informant and they have only alleged about the extra judicial confession of the appellant which has been denied by the appellant in her statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC. Learned amicus curiae has further submitted that doctor, who has treated the injured Mohan Singh from 06.11.2002 till his death i.e. on 28.12.2002, has not been examined nor the medical report has been brought on record. Learned amicus curiae has further submitted that the investigating officer has not been examined in this case, as such the prosecution has failed to bring any corroborative/cogent circumstantial evidence against the appellant to prove the charge against her beyond all reasonable doubt. Learned amicus curiae has further submitted that the investigating officer has not been examined in this case, as such the prosecution has failed to bring any corroborative/cogent circumstantial evidence against the appellant to prove the charge against her beyond all reasonable doubt. Learned amicus curiae has further submitted that non-examination of the investigating officer has caused serious prejudice to the appellant as no opportunity was given to cross-examine the investigating officer to dispel the prosecution evidence and prove her innocence before the court of law. Learned amicus curiae has thus submitted that it is a case, where appellant is entitled for benefit of doubt and may be acquitted from the charge and conviction under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code. 12. Heard, learned counsel for the State, Mrs. Vandana Bharti, Additional Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel for the State has submitted, that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is well founded and is based on the materials available on record. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the learned trial court has convicted the appellant on the basis of extra judicial confession of appellant made before Ayodhaya Singh (P.W. 1), Tanu Singh (P.W. 2), Nepal Singh (P.W. 3), Kanhai Singh (P.W. 5) and Jihur Singh (P.W. 6). Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that postmortem report has been proved as Exhibit-4 by a competent person, i.e. Medical Officer Dr. Akhilesh Kumar Chaudhary (P.W. 7), who is familiar with the hand writing and signature of Dr. Yogendra Nath and as such, the same has been rightly marked as Exhibit-4. Learned counsel for the State has thus submitted that since the wife has not informed the police about the injury caused upon her husband, as such the learned trial court has rightly accepted the extra judicial confessional statement of the appellant before the co-villagers Ayodhaya Singh (P.W. 1), Tanu Singh (P.W. 2), Nepal Singh (P.W. 3), Kanhai Singh (P.W. 5) and Jihur Singh (P.W. 6) and convicted the appellant under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code and the same does not warrant any interference by this Hon'ble Court at this stage. 13. Heard, learned Amicus Curiae, Mr. Vishwanath Ray, Advocate and learned counsel for the State, Mrs. 13. Heard, learned Amicus Curiae, Mr. Vishwanath Ray, Advocate and learned counsel for the State, Mrs. Vandana Bharti, Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the evidence brought on record including the F.I.R., framing of charge, evidence of eight prosecution witnesses, five prosecution exhibits, statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. This Court has minutely scrutinized the materials brought on record and has also taken judicial notice of the judgment relied upon by the learned amicus curiae as reported in Sahadevan and Anr. (supra). This Court has scrutinized the evidence, from perusal of the same, it appears that there is no eye-witness to the occurrence and only on the basis of the evidence of hearsay witnesses, learned trial court has considered the same to be an extra judicial confession and without taking proper care and caution, convicted the appellant. Learned trial court has no reason to have faith on such evidence of the prosecution witnesses, who belongs to a single family except Neel Kamal Mahto (P.W. 4). The court below has not taken judicial notice of the fact that if the appellant is implicated in a case, her entire land will vest in the share of the informant and other prosecution witnesses who belongs to same family and there may be chance of false implication of an innocent lady. The learned court below has not taken judicial notice before reposing confidence upon the prosecution witnesses, so far extra judicial confession is concerned, there was no cogent circumstantial evidence brought on record. The Presiding Officer should keep in mind the perception under Section 164 read with Section 281 while doing so. The Presiding Officer, if develops an aiota of doubt, he should reject the confession. From perusal of the post-mortem report, it appears that one contusion was found on the head of the injured but died approximately after one and a half month and the size of injury was 8 x 6 cm. The 'silauta' (stone material) has not been produced in the court as Material exhibit to compare with the shape and size of injury caused upon the victim nor the serological test of blood stained on 'silauta' (stone material) was matched with the blood of the victim nor the treatment, given to Mohan Singh from 06.11.2002 till his death, has been brought on record. 14. 14. Under the aforesaid circumstances, considering the evidence of Mitali Dey (P.W. 8), who has been declared hostile, though she has stated that none of the person was present at the time of treatment of victim. This Court is of the considered view that prosecution witnesses have connived together to falsely implicate the wife of injured and the appellant was taken into custody on 07.11.2002 and none of the prosecution witnesses has cared for treatment of the victim Mohan Singh rather they were interested in implicating the appellant, who is the only legal heir, as the own brother of the deceased has already left the village and was residing with his in-laws. This Court extends benefit of doubt in favour of the appellant. The appellant is acquitted of the charge and conviction passed by the learned trial court. 15. Learned amicus curiae has made a prayer that the victim is widow of the deceased, having two sons, one of five years old and another of eleven months old at the time of occurrence, as such the State Government may take steps rehabilitation of the victim and her sons. The Deputy Commissioner, Jamshedpur and the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Jamshedpur are directed to look into the matter and take suitable action in this respect. 16. In the result, the impugned judgment of conviction dated 12.02.2004 and order of sentence, dated 13.02.2004, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. V, Jamshedpur, East Singhbum, in Sessions Trial No. 6 of 2003, arising out of Patamda P.S. Case No. 77 of 2002, corresponding to G. R. No. 2198 of 2002, is hereby set aside by extending benefit of doubt in favour of the appellant. 17. The appellant, who is on bail, is discharged from liability of her bail bond. 18. Accordingly, the present criminal appeal is allowed. 19. Let the lower court record be sent along with a copy of this judgment to the court concerned, at once for necessary action. 20. Before parting with the judgment, this Court appreciates the assistance provided by Mr. Vishwanath Ray, learned amicus curiae, in disposal of this criminal appeal. The Secretary, Jharkhand Legal Services Authority is directed to release the legal admissible remuneration to the learned amicus curiae, Mr. Vishwanath Ray, Advocate of this Court within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment.