JUDGMENT B.A.Patil, J. - The appellant/accused No.1 is seeking intervention of this Court in the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.08.2016 passed by the II Addl. District and Sessions and Special Judge, Dharwad in S.C.No.50/2014. 2. We have heard the learned counsel Sri. B. V. Somapur, for the appellant/accused No.1 and the learned Addl. SPP Sri. V. M. Banakar for respondent-State. 3. The facts leading to the case are that, accused got married with the deceased Sajnabi @ Rubina and thereafter she started to reside at Alagwadi. Subsequently after 1 years prior to the date of incident, accused No.1 came to Tirlapura and started living with the deceased in the house of accused No.2, who is his mother. It is further alleged that accused No.1 was addicted to bad vices and was drinking liquor and was also having illicit relationship with other women. The same used to be objected by the deceased wife, for which accused No.1 used to assault her by abusing her in filthy language. It is accused No.2 who was instigating accused No.1 to illtreat and harass her and also to punish her. Though many a times elders advised accused No.1, he continued the ill-treatment. In that light, on 05.02.2014, the deceased went to primary school near bus stand, for supply of hot food to the school children. At about 2.30 pm while returning from the school, accused No.1 restrained and assaulted her with sickle on her back, left hand, head and other parts of the body. Due to the injuries, the deceased died on the spot. One person by name Sangappa informed the complainant about the act of the accused No.1. Immediately himself and his wife went to the spot and found the dead body of the deceased. Thereafter, they have filed the complaint as per Ex.P1. On the basis of the complaint, a case was registered in Crime No.18/2014. Thereafter after investigation charge sheet has been filed. Learned Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court secured the presence of the accused. After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused, charge was framed. Accused pleaded not guilty. He claims to be tried and as such, trial was fixed. 4. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, it got examined 25 witnesses and got marked 31 documents and 12 material objects. After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused, charge was framed. Accused pleaded not guilty. He claims to be tried and as such, trial was fixed. 4. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, it got examined 25 witnesses and got marked 31 documents and 12 material objects. Thereafter statement of the accused was recorded by putting incriminating material as against him. He denied the same and he has not led any defence evidence nor got marked any documents. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the trial Court came to the conclusion that there is material as against accused No.1 and there is no material as against accused No.2. Accused No.2 was acquitted of all the charges and accused No.1 was convicted. Challenging the legality and correctness of the same, the appellant/accused No.1 is before this Court. 5. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant/accused No.1 that, though all the eyewitnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution, the learned District Judge only relying upon the evidence of PW13, has wrongly convicted the accused, though the evidence of PW13 does not repose confidence to the effect that accused No.1 has made any confession with regard to the commission of the offence. It is his further submission that, PWs. 1 and 19 are not the eyewitnesses. Though they have spoken with regard to the motive, but there is nothing to connect the accused to the alleged crime. It is his further submission that, though the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of recovery of the blood stained clothes at the instance of the accused, but the evidence of PW7 and panch witness to recovery mahazer Ex.P12 is not trustworthy and reliable and their evidence is not satisfying the ingredients of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. It is his further submission that, though there is only scanty evidence, on the basis of the said evidence the trial Court has convicted the accused. On these grounds he prayed to allow the appeal and to set aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and acquit the appellant/accused No.1. 6. Per contra, it is the submission of the learned Addl. SPP that the prosecution has clearly established the fact of motive for the alleged incident. PWs. On these grounds he prayed to allow the appeal and to set aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and acquit the appellant/accused No.1. 6. Per contra, it is the submission of the learned Addl. SPP that the prosecution has clearly established the fact of motive for the alleged incident. PWs. 1 and 19 have clearly stated that the accused was calling the deceased to his house and she was refusing to come and in that light the alleged incident has taken place. It is his further submission that the accused was addicted to bad vices and the deceased used to object for the same and being angry with her, the accused assaulted the deceased with sickle and caused injuries. It is his further submission that immediately after the incident he has been seen by PW13 with stains on his shirt and when he has been questioned, accused confessed that he has finished his wife. Even the evidence of PWs. 14 and 15 also indicate that the elders have advised the accused in this behalf. It is his further submission that there is evidence of PWs. 7 and 8 to prove the recovery of the clothes of the accused by drawing a mahazer as per Ex.P12 and FSL report also substantiates the said fact that it contains the human blood. On these grounds he prayed that the trial Court after taking into consideration all the aspects has come to a right conclusion and has rightly convicted the accused. 7. We have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties. Perused the records, including the Trial Court records. 8. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the accused that though there is no sufficient material to bring home the guilt of the accused, the Trial Court has convicted the appellant - accused No.1 erroneously. 9. To prove the case of prosecution, it has got examined as many as 25 witnesses. Though the prosecution has quoted P.Ws.9 to 12 as eyewitnesses, but they have not supported the case of the prosecution and they have been treated as hostile. When all the witnesses have turned hostile, then the prosecution has to establish the case on circumstantial evidence. To prove the case of prosecution, it has got examined as many as 25 witnesses. Though the prosecution has quoted P.Ws.9 to 12 as eyewitnesses, but they have not supported the case of the prosecution and they have been treated as hostile. When all the witnesses have turned hostile, then the prosecution has to establish the case on circumstantial evidence. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of P.Ws.7 and 8, recovery of the shirt and lungi of the accused by drawing a mahazar, as per Ex.P-12. 10. In the evidence of P.W.7, he has deposed that about two years back, when he had been to Navalgund, Police called him and accused No.1 was also there and they took them to Alagawadi Village and accused No.1 went alongwith Police inside the house and they also followed them. Accused produced one lungi and a shirt and the Police have drawn mahazar, as per Ex.P-12 and some photographs were taken, they have been marked as Ex.P-13 and the said articles i.e., shirt and lungi have been got marked as M.Os.11 and 12. During the course of crossexamination, he has admitted that the Police have not taken him to the house of the accused and he does not know the owner of the house which is shown in the photo. Other suggestions have been denied. 11. P.W.8 also reiterated the evidence of P.W.7. During the course of cross-examination, he pleaded his ignorance regarding the ownership of the house in question and stated that he had been taken by the Police forcibly. 12. By taking into consideration the evidence of these two witnesses, it is not going to satisfy the ingredients of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The prosecution has to clearly establish in the first instance that the material discovered is within the exclusive knowledge of the accused and that the accused has to lead and thereafter he has to produce the said articles and the same has to be seized. In the instance case on hand, P.W.7 had deposed that accused has produced one lungi and a shirt which were there in his hand. Even it is not stated that the said shirt and the lungi were hidden, nor it is stated from where they have been taken out and produced. In the instance case on hand, P.W.7 had deposed that accused has produced one lungi and a shirt which were there in his hand. Even it is not stated that the said shirt and the lungi were hidden, nor it is stated from where they have been taken out and produced. The recovery evidence on which prosecution is intending to rely upon, does not substantiates the case of the prosecution in any manner. 13. The second circumstance on which the prosecution intends to rely upon is that the accused has made a confessional statement for having committed the offence in the presence of P.W.13 Jagadish K. Menasinakai. In his evidence, he has deposed that about two years back, while he was returning from his land from Alagawadi road at about 02:00 or 03:00 p.m., the accused No.1 came from the opposite direction and his clothes were stained with blood and when he enquiried, he told that he has murdered the daughter of the complainant and hurriedly he went towards Alagawadi village. He came near the house of one Basavaraj Samshi and the body of the deceased had fallen and he came to know that because of assault with sickle, she has died. During the course of cross-examination, he has deposed that he has seen the accused on the road by consuming alcohol. He has further deposed that the accused while going towards Alagawadi village, did not stop and as such, he did not ask for what reason he has assaulted the deceased, but the evidence on which the prosecution is intending to rely upon, it does not constitute a confession as contemplated under the Act. 14. To constitute an extra judicial confession, the accused must have repentance for having committed the said offence and in order to have solace, he has to confess that he has committed the said act and that the accused must have reposed confidence with that particular person and simply saying that the accused came in front and he confessed about the commission of offence does not constitute a confession. 15. Be that as it may, it is the trite law that extra judicial confession is considered to be a very weak type of evidence. No conclusion can be entered solely on the basis of conviction made by the accused. 16. 15. Be that as it may, it is the trite law that extra judicial confession is considered to be a very weak type of evidence. No conclusion can be entered solely on the basis of conviction made by the accused. 16. Be that as it may, even on perusal of the evidence of P.W.13, the conduct of this witness also plays a very important role. Even if accused No.1 has stated that he has finished the daughter of the complainant, immediately P.W.13 could have tried to catch hold of him so as to produce him before the Police or before the complainant or even he has not made any hue and cry to gather people and to caught hold of him or that he himself has not made any efforts to immediately inform the said fact to the complainant or the relatives of the deceased. Under such circumstances, the evidence of this witness is also not acceptable. 17. Be that as it may, even if the evidence of P.W.13 is taken into consideration, he has deposed that about two years back he was going back from the field at about 02:00 or 03:00 p.m. But no farmer in a natural course of business goes at about 02:00 or 03:00 p.m. to his home, either he will go at about 11:00 or 11:30 a.m. after attending his first session work and thereafter, he will go back to the field in the afternoon or else once he goes, he will come in the evening itself. Then under such circumstances, the evidence of this witness appears to be planted only to suit the case, even that there is no close relationship existing between the accused and this witness to confess. He has not explained how the facial features were there immediately after the incident. He asked the accused like any other person, who casually answered and left the place. This creates a doubt because of the reason that if any person comes to know about the commission of murder, normally he will become panic and will be disturbed. In that light, this evidence which has been produced by the prosecution is not going to substantiate the case of the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 18. The last circumstances on which the prosecution is intending to rely upon is that of motive. In that light, this evidence which has been produced by the prosecution is not going to substantiate the case of the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 18. The last circumstances on which the prosecution is intending to rely upon is that of motive. We are conscious of the fact that the motive plays an important part in order to tilt the scale, but it must be corroborated with other evidence. When the material eyewitnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution, then under such circumstances, only because there was some quarrel between the accused and the deceased and some have advised and he has not heeded to the advise, on the basis of that, no inference can be drawn that it is the accused who has committed the alleged offence. In that light, the evidence of P.W.1, the complainant P.Ws.14, 15 and 19 will not hold the case of the prosecution in any manner. 19. Insofar as other evidence which has been produced is the investigation which has been conducted by the Investigating Officer and the postmortem conducted over the body of the deceased, in the instance case on hand, the learned counsel for the appellant - accused has not disputed the fact that the deceased died a homicidal death. In that light, we feel that much discussion is not necessary. 20. Though there is no sufficient and cogent evidence to convict the appellant - accused, the Trial Court only basing upon the evidence of P.W.13 and recovery evidence, has came to a conclusion that the accused has committed the offence and has convicted. In that light, the Trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence in this behalf. The Trial Court has only come to the conclusion that the accused has not given any explanation for incriminating evidence and circumstance against him, but we are surprised to observe that if there is any incriminating evidence as against the accused, under such circumstances, he has to explain, but when prosecution itself has failed to bring home any incriminating evidence as against the accused, then under such circumstances, the accused is not duty bound to furnish an explanation under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. 21. In that light, the Trial Court has committed an error and has come to a wrong conclusion and has wrongly convicted the accused. 22. In that light, the Trial Court has committed an error and has come to a wrong conclusion and has wrongly convicted the accused. 22. We have carefully and cautiously gone through the judgment of the Trial Court. The Trial Court without properly appreciating the evidence and law has come to a wrong conclusion and has wrongly convicted the accused. The same deserves to be interfered with at the hands of this Court. 23. For the discussion held by us above, we pass the following order: ORDER (i) Appeal is allowed. (ii) The judgment of conviction dated 30.08.2016 and the order on sentence dated 01.09.2016 passed by the learned II Additional District, Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Dharwad in S.C. No.50/2014 is set aside. (iii) The appellant - accused is acquitted of all the charges levelled against him and he is set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. (iv) Registry is directed to intimate the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad and the concerned Jail Authorities through e-mail to release the appellant - accused - Sharifsab S/o. Davalsab Nadaf forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. Registry is directed to send back the Trial Court records forthwith.