JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned Amicus Curiae Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Tiwary, appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Pankaj Kumar representing the State. 2. The sole appellant has undergone conviction for the charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and is suffering incarceration of life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-and to suffer default sentence for one year on failure to deposit the fine amount, by the impugned judgment dated 21.09.2013 / order of sentence dated 28.09.2013 rendered by the learned Judicial Commissioner-II, Khunti in Sessions Trial No. 626 of 2009 which arose out of Arki P.S. Case No. 15/2009 corresponding to G.R. No. 167/2009. 3. The prosecution story developed on the basis of the fardbeyan of the father of the deceased Lembo Kumari namely Phagua Lohara (examined as P.W.2) recorded by the Sub Inspector Dharam Deo Ram, Officer-in-charge, Arki P.S. on 28.05.2009 at 9.45 hours at Lupung Piri side of Pucci road. As per the fardbeyan, the informant asserted the role of the accused Chamru Munda (sole appellant) in killing his daughter Lembo Kumari aged 16 years whose dead body was found on 28.05.2009 near Lupung Piri by the side of Pucci road. Her daughter Lembo Kumari aged 16 years had gone to Birbanki village on 25.05.2009 to see Mela. The informant alleged that the accused Chamru Munda, son of Gansa Munda, resident of Icharuti, P.S. Arki waylaid her and assaulted by Farsa on her neck causing her death. The informant stated that Chamru Munda was in love with his daughter Lembo Kumari and wanted to marry her, but he suspected that Lembo Kumari was in love with some other boy. The informant further alleged that a Panchayati of two villages was done which caused delay in institution of the fardbeyan. On this assertion, the informant alleged that his daughter has been killed by the accused Chamru Munda by assaulting her with Farsa. Budhram Lohra (P.W.3) has signed as fardbeyan witness. 4. Upon institution of Arki P.S. Case No. 15/2009 dated 28.05.2009, police swung into action and finding the case true, submitted charge sheet bearing no. 12/2009 on 31.05.2009 under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the sole accused Chamru Munda citing eight witnesses. Budhram Lohra (P.W.3) has signed as fardbeyan witness. 4. Upon institution of Arki P.S. Case No. 15/2009 dated 28.05.2009, police swung into action and finding the case true, submitted charge sheet bearing no. 12/2009 on 31.05.2009 under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the sole accused Chamru Munda citing eight witnesses. After cognizance, case was committed to the Court of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, FTC where charges were framed against the sole accused under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code on 09.10.2009. On being read over and explained to the accused in Hindi, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thus, trial commenced. 5. Prosecution adduced eight witnesses in support of its case, named as under: P.W.1: Dr. Rajeshwar Prasad P.W.2: Fagua Lohra P.W.3: Budhram Lohra P.W.4: Lebra Nag P.W.5: Sora Devi P.W.6: Santosh Lohra P.W.7: Gune Nag P.W.8: Dharm Deo Ram It also exhibited number of documents up to Ext.4, as under. All proved without objection. Ext.1: P.W.1 proved the postmortem report Ext.2: P.W.3 proved his signature on fardbeyan Ext.3: The Investigating Officer (P.W.8) proved the Fardbeyan Ext.4: Endorsement on fardbeyan proved by P.W.8. 6. Homicidal death has been shown from the postmortem report of P.W.1 Dr. Rajeshwar Prasad, which has been proved and marked as Ext.1, as under: “Rigor Mortis absent all over body. Body is in state of highly advance decomposition. Body massively swollen. Features bloated and disfigured. Maggots all over body. Head separated from the Trunk. Skin of trunk peeled off here and there. Large blisters present. The scalp hair losses. Injuries: Sharp cut wound in the neck at the level of cervical 4th and 5th vertebra resulting in total decapitation of head from the trunk. Edges of bone though deformed by the maggots and marking on cervical 4th and 5th vertebra show multiple attempts of decapitation. Examination of head shows similar injuries correlating with the injuries present in neck of the Trunk. All injury are ante mortem in nature and caused by sharp cutting object. Cause of death: Heamorrhage and shock. Time elapsed since death – in between 3 to 5 days at the time of postmortem examination.” In cross-examination, nothing material was elucidated from this witness. 7. We have perused the evidence of prosecution witness nos. 2 to 8 also minutely. All injury are ante mortem in nature and caused by sharp cutting object. Cause of death: Heamorrhage and shock. Time elapsed since death – in between 3 to 5 days at the time of postmortem examination.” In cross-examination, nothing material was elucidated from this witness. 7. We have perused the evidence of prosecution witness nos. 2 to 8 also minutely. Prosecution Witness No. 2 Fagua Lohra is the informant who, while supporting the allegation made in the First Information Report, stated that he got information about the role of the accused Chamru Munda during meeting at Birbanki. Police came on information and inquest report of the dead body was prepared in his presence, on which he claims to have inscribed his signature. In his cross examination, he has not stated the name of the person from whom he came to know about the incidence, nor had he seen the murder of his daughter. Later on, he came to know that his daughter has been killed by Chamru. P.W.3 is Budhram Lohra who has identified his signature on the fardbeyan, which has been marked as Ext.2. In his statement on oath, he claims to have learnt from the Panchayat where Chamru had stated that he had killed Lembo Kumari since he was in love with her and thereafter got entangled with another boy. His cross-examination however demolished his entire statement. He does not remember the date of meeting in the village; under whose chairmanship it was held. He further states that deliberation of the meeting were not recorded and further at para-7, he states that he does not know the name of the person who stated who had killed Lembo. At para-9, he has stated that he has not made statement before the police. P.W.4 Lebra Nag is also a hearsay witness, who has seen the dead body and states that they had apprehended the accused Chamru who in the meeting confessed of having committed murder of Lembo since he was in love with her, but she did not want to marry him. This witness also has discredited himself during cross-examination as he does not remember the date of the meeting; under whose chairmanship it was held and also does not say as to which person in the meeting disclosed that Lembo was killed. He was also not in a position to say as to by which weapon Lembo was killed. This witness also has discredited himself during cross-examination as he does not remember the date of the meeting; under whose chairmanship it was held and also does not say as to which person in the meeting disclosed that Lembo was killed. He was also not in a position to say as to by which weapon Lembo was killed. At para-5, he specifically states that he does not know who killed her. P.W.5 Sora Devi is the wife of the informant. According to her, she came to know of the incidence on brawl that Chamru has killed Lembo, but could not say why he did so. In her cross-examination, she denies having given any statement before the police. She also denied that the incidence of murder took place in her presence. At para-4, she says that Chamru belongs to the village Ichaguru and not her village. At para-5, she further states that she is not in a position to say as to who killed Lembo and with what weapon. P.W.6 Santosh Lohra in his examination-in-chief made a mention of confession of the accused Chamru. In his cross-examination, he denies being present in the meeting (Panchayat) and further states that he could not say whether deliberation of the Panchayat was recorded or not. He could not narrate any details of the meeting, nor had he seen Lembo being killed. He only says that he came to know about the role of Chamru from the person in the Panchayat. P.W.7 Gune Nag is the son of the informant (P.W.2). In his deposition, he states that when the girl did not return for three days, then villagers started searching for her, during which her dead body was recovered by the side of the road at Lupung Piri. He states about relationship between Chamru and Lembo (deceased) and that Chamru was interested in marrying her, which she did not consent to as she wanted to marry someone else. According to this witness, Chamru had confessed of the crime in the meeting. Some villagers who attended the meeting had informed this prosecution witness about the confession of Chamru. In his cross-examination, he does not remember the date and month of the incidence. He also does not know the names of the persons who went out to search her after three days. Some villagers who attended the meeting had informed this prosecution witness about the confession of Chamru. In his cross-examination, he does not remember the date and month of the incidence. He also does not know the names of the persons who went out to search her after three days. He could not further state as to who was the boy with whom Lembo was in love. According to him, Lembo had gone to see Chhau dance along with her friend. This friend of Lembo has not been examined by the prosecution. In his cross-examination, he denies having seen the occurrence. He categorically states that other persons informed him that Chamru killed Lembo by means of Tono, but that Tono has not been recovered. He could not say as to who had narrated him that Lembo had been killed. P.W.8 Dharm Deo Ram is the Officer-in-Charge of Arki P.S. who had recorded the fardbeyan of the Informant (P.W.2), which has been proved to be in his handwriting and marked as Ext.3. His endorsement thereupon has been marked as Ext.4. This witness claims to have prepared inquest report, but that inquest has not been marked as Exhibit. He claims to have inspected the place of occurrence and also taken the statement of certain witnesses namely, Lebra Nag, Budhram Lohra, Santosh Lohra, Gune Nag and Sora Devi. After obtaining the postmortem report, upon the direction of the senior police officials, he submitted the charge sheet. In his cross-examination, he denies having taken statement of persons whose houses were adjacent to the place of occurrence. 8. Upon closure of the prosecution evidence, accused in his statement under section 313 of the Cr.PC denied his involvement in the offence and pleaded his innocence. 9. Learned Trial Court however recorded conviction against the sole accused relying upon the testimony of the prosecution witnesses by holding that the prosecution story was proved on the basis of extra judicial confession. 10. Learned Amicus Curiae has seriously questioned the findings of the learned Trial Court. After placing the evidence on record in detail, as discussed hereinabove, he submits that there is no extra judicial confession worth its name in the eye of law which could form the basis of sustaining the impugned finding. 10. Learned Amicus Curiae has seriously questioned the findings of the learned Trial Court. After placing the evidence on record in detail, as discussed hereinabove, he submits that there is no extra judicial confession worth its name in the eye of law which could form the basis of sustaining the impugned finding. The extra judicial confession, in itself, as contemplated under section 25 of the Evidence Act, is a weak piece of evidence which, if corroborated in all its relevant details, can be made the basis for conviction, but the so-called extra judicial confession also is not substantiated by any cogent evidence. He relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sahadevan and another versus State of Tamil Nadu [ (2012) 6 SCC 403 , para-14 & 16] in support of the submission that though confession ordinarily is admissible in evidence as a relevant fact, but under certain circumstances and subject to law laid down by the Superior Court from time to time. Prosecution has to satisfy that the confession was voluntary; truthful and duly corroborated. None of these ingredients stands satisfied to uphold the impugned finding. As such, the impugned judgment is fit to be set aside as it suffers from mis-appreciation of evidence leading to perversity in findings. 11. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has labored hard to support the findings rendered by the learned Trial Court based on the materials brought on record by the prosecution and the theory of extra judicial confession. Learned counsel for the State submits that the delay in lodging of the fardbeyan has also been adequately explained by the prosecution as the prosecution witnesses no. 2 to 7 have consistently talked about Panchayati, though insignificant details about Panchayati may have been missed out by them. Since a number of persons who have participated in the Panchayati, where accused have confessed his guilt, have supported it during trial, Learned Trial Court had enough basis to record the findings of conviction against the sole accused. Medical evidence also further corroborated the assault by sharp cutting weapon like Farsa on the neck of the deceased. Prosecution case is further corroborated as the dead body was more than 3 to 5 days old since the girl was missing from 25.05.2009. The dead body was recovered on 28.05.2009 and the postmortem was conducted on the same day. Medical evidence also further corroborated the assault by sharp cutting weapon like Farsa on the neck of the deceased. Prosecution case is further corroborated as the dead body was more than 3 to 5 days old since the girl was missing from 25.05.2009. The dead body was recovered on 28.05.2009 and the postmortem was conducted on the same day. The injury found by the Medical Officer corroborates that the dead body was more than 3 to 5 days old as rigor mortis was absent and maggots had appeared after putrefaction. Death was caused due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of assault on the neck of the victim by multiple attempts causing decapitation from the head to the trunk. Since prosecution had been able to substantiate the charge on the basis of extra judicial confession of the accused, duly corroborated by the prosecution witness and the medical evidence, the impugned findings are worth to be sustained. The appeal is therefore fit to be dismissed. 12. We have given anxious consideration to the submissions of learned Amicus Curiae and learned counsel for the State and also perused the entire material evidence on record together with fardbeyan; framing of the charge and statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 13. From perusal of the impugned judgment and order of sentence, we gather that the learned Sessions Court has relied upon the testimony of the prosecution witnesses particularly 2 to 7 as having corroborated the extra judicial confession of the accused made during the panchayati. However, we find that while on the one hand, deliberation of the panchayati / meeting were not recorded in writing and brought on record, at the same time, material prosecution witnesses whose testimony have been relied upon to base the conviction, has miserably failed to substantiate the date of panchayat, name of persons who participated in it and / or name of the Chairman under whom it was held. No one has stated the name of any individual who could specifically narrate about the role of this accused in killing of the victim Lembo Kumari either through direct evidence or as corroboration of the alleged confession of the accused Chamru Munda during Panchayat. No one has stated the name of any individual who could specifically narrate about the role of this accused in killing of the victim Lembo Kumari either through direct evidence or as corroboration of the alleged confession of the accused Chamru Munda during Panchayat. Girlfriend of the victim Lembo Kumari who allegedly accompanied her to Mela for seeing Chhau dance, could not be examined by the prosecution to provide any strength to the prosecution case, as set up by the informant in the fardbeyan. The entire case of the prosecution hinges on extra judicial confession which, as per the opinion of the Apex Court in the case of Sahadevan (Supra), can be a basis for conviction only and only if it satisfies the following ingredients. (i) Voluntariness of the confession; (ii) truthfulness of the confession; and (iii) corroboration. It is trite to say that as a rule of caution, Court looks upon an independent corroboration before placing any reliance on such extra judicial confession, since by its very nature, it is a very weak type of evidence. The so-called extra judicial confession of the accused in the present case is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, hence its credibility becomes doubtful and losses its importance. As a matter of fact, there is no proof of his confession in the eye of law, as claimed before the Panchayat. The opinion of the Apex Court in the case of Sahadevan (Supra) contained at para-14 and 16 of the Report is profitably extracted hereunder: “14. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence. Wherever the court, upon due appreciation of the entire prosecution evidence, intends to base a conviction on an extra-judicial confession, it must ensure that the same inspires confidence and is corroborated by other prosecution evidence. If, however, the extra-judicial confession suffers from material discrepancies or inherent improbabilities and does not appear to be cogent as per the prosecution version, it may be difficult for the court to base a conviction on such a confession. In such circumstances, the court would be fully justified in ruling such evidence out of consideration. 16. Upon a proper analysis of the above referred judgments of this Court, it will be appropriate to state the principles which would make an extrajudicial confession an admissible piece of evidence capable of forming the basis of conviction of an accused. In such circumstances, the court would be fully justified in ruling such evidence out of consideration. 16. Upon a proper analysis of the above referred judgments of this Court, it will be appropriate to state the principles which would make an extrajudicial confession an admissible piece of evidence capable of forming the basis of conviction of an accused. These precepts would guide the judicial mind while dealing with the veracity of cases where the prosecution heavily relies upon an extra-judicial confession alleged to have been made by the accused: (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. 14. As discussed hereinabove, the case of the prosecution suffers from material discrepancies and inherent improbabilities. It had failed to support extra judicial confession by any chain of cogent circumstances. It had to be proved like any other facts and in accordance with law. 15. Considered thus, we are unable to uphold the conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court as it suffers from grave errors. Finding of the learned Trial Court suffers from complete mis-appreciation of evidence and it could be termed as perverse. As such, the impugned judgment is set aside. Appeal is allowed. The appellant Chamru Munda who is in custody, be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case. Let the Lower Court Record be sent to the Court concerned forthwith along with copy of the judgment. 16. We appreciate the assistance rendered by learned Amicus Curiae Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Tiwary during hearing of this case. The Member Secretary, JHALSA would bear his admissible legal remuneration on production of the certified copy of the judgment along with an application within a time frame of four weeks from its receipt.